Special Hearings — Chemical And Biological Warfare Hearings — 1998-06-08

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I don't have a problem.  I want to place on record firstly that my client was not informed about the allegations made by Mr Goosen against him.  He did not have an opportunity to prepare himself.  At this stage, because of limited time, I am going to address a few aspects with Mr Goosen and then my client in his evidence, will refer to the main issues.  From a procedural point of view it is better to do it this way because of lack of time.  With your permission I would like to continue.

WENDY ORR: Please go ahead.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Goosen, according to your evidence it appears that you regarded yourself as a scientist with a big potential, is that correct?

DR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, if you haven't tried something you don't know how far your potential stretches.

MR DU PLESSIS: You've regarded yourself as a person with large potential, isn't that true?   At that stage, before you became involved in RRL, isn't that so?

DR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, I don't really know what the question is about, what is the definition of "large potential" please?

MR DU PLESSIS: Don't let us play with words.  You ...[intervention]

MR VALLY: Mr Chair, I want to intervene at this stage.  I want to remind Mr van Zyl(?) about - Madam Chair, I beg your pardon, I want to remind Mr van Zyl about the provisions of Section 23 of our Act in terms of how he should treat witnesses.

WENDY ORR: Please go ahead Mr Vally.

MR VALLY: Sorry, the Section is Section 11.  It talks about when dealing with victims.  Actions and ...[indistinct] of guidance by principles.
"Victims shall be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity"
I don't know whether you want to characterise this witness as a victim but really the unnecessary - I can understand probing aggressive questioning when it's relevant but probing aggressiveness without relevancy, an aggressiveness for the sake of being aggressive is really unnecessary in our hearing and I would ask that Mr van Zyl be asked to curb his approaches to this witness.

WENDY ORR: I'm not a lawyer and I'd have to ask my legal friends if Section 13 does apply in this case.  We would ask that all witnesses be treated with respect and dignity and not harassed or badgered.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, I am not aggressive.

DR GOOSEN: Sorry, I don't feel threatened at the moment but I just want to know potentially, what is my ambitions in life?  I think I could have fulfilled by ambitions in life, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: You had the choice.  You told the police about this multimillion rand enterprise you could establish, isn't that so?

DR GOOSEN: That is correct.  If you are referring to my financial aspirations, at that stage there was a possibility of becoming involved in potentially good viable financial things.

MR DU PLESSIS: You certainly would not have become involved in that if you did not have the potential?

DR GOOSEN: For those financial propositions I had the ability.

MR DU PLESSIS: Am I correct in asking, to ask whether the financial matters were very important to you?

DR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, yes, money is for important for everyone I believe to a more or a lesser extent.  It was important for me to have financial security for myself and my family.  If it could have been more comfortable yes, it was important but I opted for being - as you can remember, the less favourable option financially at that stage, at that moment in time.

MR DU PLESSIS: You'd exercised the choice as you put it Doctor, for nation and fatherland.

DR GOOSEN: That's correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: But before you took that decision you first established whether there was sufficient money to get the project off the ground not so?

DR GOOSEN: That's correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And throughout your evidence I got the impression that the financial aspect was very important to you because later you also said, when you were asked to leave, that you received an amount of R60 000 and you had a wife and six children to look after and you suffered, is that correct?

DR GOOSEN: That is correct.  I would just like to know, at this point in time what has my financial then got to do with the evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: You are being cross-examined on issues that you yourself brought in reply to questions and I think it is the whole question of whether or not you are not testifying simply because you, you know, an allegation may be made that you are coming here only because you didn't get as much as everybody else got, that in fact you are so aggrieved that you want to come here and say things that - I'm not saying that is what counsel is trying to get to, but what I'm saying is, it may speak to your state of mind, your motivation for being here and for what might have induced you to come and talk before us.

DR GOOSEN: Thank you.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I must say that you are very sharp.
 Doctor Goosen, that is the impression I got throughout your evidence, that you are actually embittered towards the system that has left you in the lurch, not so?

DR GOOSEN: I will not deny that in phases of my life the bitterness was at higher and lower levels than at other phases, we are all human.  What I went through is the truth.  We are here to establish the truth, so what our learned friend is saying might be the truth.  I can assure him that at this stage my bitterness has been handled and I'm not an embittered person any longer.

MR DU PLESSIS: We accept that today you are no longer embittered Doctor Goosen but your whole approach, your evidence seems, what appears from your evidence it seems that you are embittered about the way the system treated you, is that correct?

DR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, no, I said that I was bitter at one stage and I did not know why I received the treatment I did.  I believe that parts of the treatment I received was definitely not justified or fair.  I cannot hide that, I am convinced of that.  I was not treated fairly and it is true what he says but I do not think it influences the facts of my testimony.  The facts that I have given I will stand by.

MR DU PLESSIS: During your testimony you also told this Committee how the system motivated you, the remarks made by Pik Botha regarding the total onslaught etc., etc., and in that way you also justified what you did at that stage, not so?  In your evidence I never got the impression that you were sorry for what you had done, is that correct?

DR GOOSEN: I made it clear I think at a stage, that if today in this time I have to make the decisions again and with hindsight I might have made different decisions.  I also said that if I was in the same position I might have made the same decisions again.  I was very bitter about this whole aspect.  In the whole situation I was also bitter about when I saw that the project was not making the progress I expected from it initially.
 When I removed from the project in managing and developing the scientific area of this whole thing, the whole issue, not only from the money side, I was also embittered about that.  I was disappointed.  We had such ideals in the context of what we believed at the time, we had such high ideals and positiveness and working in this thing and I was also disappointed when that was not materialising.

MR DU PLESSIS: Doctor Goosen, there was testimony from Doctor Swanepoel that during the period that RRL's buildings were erected, that you made use of the building contractors to do extensions at your house on the farm, is that correct?

DR GOOSEN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Further testimony from Doctor Swanepoel stated that you entered into an agreement with the contractors that they would do that work for you at your house for free, is that correct?

DR GOOSEN: No, that's not correct Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you pay them?

DR GOOSEN: I haven't paid them Mr Chairman.