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

MR BASSON: I want to explain to you what an incapacitant is.  In a defence or military situation, it is a question of a situation that you have to keep your faculties together, to reach your objective.
 It is the same in a civil situation, you have to keep your faculties together to reach your objective.  There are a few ways to take your faculties away permanently, take them away, and that is to kill you.  You can't defend yourself, you can't think, you can't protect yourself.
 And by influencing a person's observational capacity and his perceptions, you can influence a person.  You can do that by disturbing the visual picture or also the brain's reaction on that.
 To change a person's emotions and you can cause the person not to achieve his objective.  That you can do by influencing the brain function so that the person does not recognise the threat or cannot handle this threat, or you can do it by various substances which can cause a lowering of the blood pressure.
 The person for example can't stand up straight because his blood pressure has fallen, and if he falls over he can't run away.  There are various such ways of incapacitating a person.
 The request of the Defence Force regarding incapacitants was to develop these substances which would not leave any permanent damage, and that group of incapacitants which did not cause permanent damage, were those working on the central nervous system and on the brain.
 The Defence Force said if we develop incapacitants, we did not have the money to develop a new weapon.  I could not develop a new projectile or a new delivery mechanism, we had to use existing delivery mechanisms which the Defence Force had.
 One of the existing methods was that certain substances would have to be released.  On a Friday evening you can walk around in town, and you would see various people incapacitating themselves by smoking.  We have learnt that trick from the local population.
 If you want to incapacitate people easily and without any costs, it should be something which would be absorbed through the lungs.  Every one of those things which Mr Vally mentioned, were things which could be inhaled through the nose or through the lungs.
 That would cause reversible effect on a person.  That would be an objective to incapacitate a person just temporarily.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cilliers, I have heard you and you wanted to be excused.  The only difficulty is that your client has expressed an apprehension that if he does not have you as a representative, he is in a problem, which is why we postponed the matter till today.
 Now, I am not sufficiently informed as to whether you have another professional engagement tonight still, because that should be the consideration that should weigh heavily with us.  It is not unknown that proceedings do continue and that we have to sit late if need be and I cannot see a more compelling case than the present one.

MR CILLIERS: I can explain my position.  I have explained to you what my problem was in the first place, that initially it was told to me that I should not be available for Friday.  This position changed yesterday and with a great demand or with great problems for especially to clients, it is not necessary to mention their names now and because of my non-availability to day, I would have arranged that I would make preparations tonight.  I am seeing these clients tomorrow morning to enable us to finalise a submission.
 The deadline actually was today.  We will file that now on Monday.  I have to do the preparation tonight, and tomorrow the consultation and the finalisation.  That is my position.
 This is applicable to me and my client and my lawyer, Mr Van Zyl also.  Last night at half past ten I started consulting with my client and because at that stage, we only arrived in Cape Town we worked to round about two o'clock this morning. Eight o'clock we were here this morning, I had three, four hours of sleep last night, and the same applies to my client.  We have been here since eight o'clock this morning.  It is already five o'clock, and at this stage I am in a physical situation that I am tired, too tired to go on.
 The same applies to my client.  My client feels and he maintains that he prefers and that he has received advice that he need not answer questions if I am not available.
 That is unfortunately the situation.  I am repeating what we have said and as Mr Vally has said, what is still outstanding, it seems to me he has already covered all aspects.  I will give an undertaking and you can make such an order, that if any other aspects he requires information about, I will provide it in a written form.  I could supply it by next Friday.  That is if he provides the questions on Monday, that is to accommodate you.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just hear you Mr Vally in the light of this?

MR VALLY: Mr Chairman, over the last three days we have had a song and dance regarding legal representation of Dr Wouter Basson.
 We made it very clear on the day that we had Dr Wouter Basson here, represented by Mr Van Niekerk, we assumed that Mr Van Niekerk faithfully conveyed to Mr Malan what transpired on Wednesday, that we were opposed to any postponement, but should it be granted, we would need at least two days, and we referred to Thursday and Friday.  That was made explicitly clear on Wednesday.
 There was no talk that Friday would not be necessary.  That is the first issue.  We have always made it clear we need at least two days.
 The second issue is we were told according to the strange instructions that Mr Van Niekerk received, that they had attempted to get other counsel, but Colonel Kaiser had declined them consent to obtain other counsel.
 Colonel Kaiser has confirmed in a letter that they were never approached to obtain alternative counsel.  
 Thirdly, we were told by Mr Van Niekerk that when they tried to contact Mr Malan, Adv Cilliers, Adv Van Zyl, they only got hold of Adv Cilliers, who said he was available on Friday.
 We were told he didn't get hold of Adv Van Zyl or Mr Malan.  Next yesterday we were told by Mr Van Niekerk that they tried a number of counsel in Pretoria and Cape Town, unsuccessfully, but in the morning we got a letter from Mr Malan, who said the only person who is suitable is Adv Cilliers.
 We now have a situation where Mr Cilliers wants to leave promptly at five o'clock.  This is unacceptable.  I believe, and I respectfully submit that by their conduct, they are trying to frustrate both the workings of this Committee as well as trying to frustrate the order granted by Justice Hlophe.
 I respectfully submit that if Adv Cilliers wishes to leave, that we be allowed to continue and I can't understand why yesterday and Wednesday there were no legal representatives available, today we have one, two, three, four and if you count Ms Nicole at the back, five people here representing Dr Wouter Basson, why none of them are available.
 I respectfully submit that this is a ploy to frustrate us, I have a number of questions left, we have not finished.  We still want to determine whether Dr Wouter Basson produced drugs to try and enslave the youth, if Dr Wouter Basson produced drugs to try and sell and make money, did Dr Basson actually dump any drugs in the sea or was this a fictitious series of events?  We cannot leave it here Mr Chairman.
 I would respectfully submit that we continue and Adv Cilliers, can make his election thereafter.  Thank you Mr Chairperson.