Special Hearings — Chemical And Biological Warfare Hearings — 1998-06-10

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally may I just get a sense from you how long do you think you are going to need to research what you need to research? He says he is going to give you everything ready in written form that he is going to be relying upon for bringing the application. I was just thinking that I do not know how long you are going to take. Whether you could not be excused whilst you go and do the research and Mr Chaskalson continues to do what can be done in the meantime. I would also like the situation, my preference would be the applicant makes his application you answer and then there is a reply and then we are given an opportunity to reflect on the application and we give a ruling.

MR VALLY: If that is the preference of the panel and especially if my learned friend gives me his written heads for want of another phrase then that would be fine. It should not take me longer than the time it will take to lead the next witness or question the next witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you therefore saying we should stand this witness down, call the next evidence?

MR VALLY: Sure if I am assured that there is not anything new that is going to be raised when I come back which will necessitate another postponement. If my learned friend is giving me the heads right now which covers all the aspects he wishes to raise I have no problems then.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that your proposal Mr Cilliers?

MR CILLIERS: Yes I do not have written heads. The situation just occurred this morning. I have made certain notes regarding the main points of my argument giving reference to various authorities I am going to base my argument on. I am willing to give it to Mr Vally. I do not intend Mr Chairman to argue anything which will catch him unawares because the result will be is that this matter stand over for half hour so we can research that. Because I do not want to place him in an awkward position. I will give him everything before hand.

CHAIRPERSON: If I understand you well you are not necessarily indicating to Mr Vally the basis on which your application is going to be brought. You will indicate to him the authorities you are going to rely on.

MR CILLIERS: The total bases together with the authority.

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Cilliers what are you going to ask us? What do you want us - which application are you bringing in regarding this witness?

MR CILLIERS: The basis?

ADV POTGIETER: No I do not want to know what the basis is. What are you asking for?

MR CILLIERS: The application is that the proceedings should be suspended until the criminal proceedings have been taken into consideration. The legal position is there is a distinction between the South African law and the Canadian law. And the Canadian and European law where total procedures could be suspended and the choice which a person then has to testify is not a proper choice. Because of the prejudice during a criminal court case. The South African law follows a stricter approach because the choice to give evidence even if it is a difficult choice is still a choice. Here is now a case of statutory force and the proceeding regarding the interrogation of the witness taking into consideration his right to keep silent would not be impeded.

ADV POTGIETER: This is what you are going to submit to us? What you are saying is the decision regarding this witness and Dr Basson is the same. You are going to address us in the same respect.

MR CILLIERS: There is a difference. Mr Vally has agreed in a certain respect and the application seemed to be the same. The legal assistance I am going to ask for will be the same. The basis for the argument will be different. But what I am going to ask you will be different.

ADV POTGIETER: And you are ready to argue?

MR CILLIERS: I have received a decision from Mr Vally the library has provided various documents to me. I would like 10 minutes to peruse those. This will be a sensible. The proposal from the Chairman that we continue with Dr Swanepoel's evidence then I will be in a better position to present my case.

ADV POTGIETER: I am convinced thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Now is it possible when you bring the application also on behalf this Dr Basson for him to be present? I believe he is in Cape Town.

MR CILLIERS: Unfortunately it would not be possible to have him here within the very short time. He is in Cape Town and we can have him here but it might take an hour or so to have him in fact here.

CHAIRPERSON: No what I was thinking is that if you are inclined to follow your process as suggested by both you and Mr Vally we have tea for instance now and we should be coming back at eleven. And at eleven we would then take Dr Swanepoel and that should provide sufficient time getting through the evidence of Dr Swanepoel for all those arrangements to be made for Dr Basson to be here. Will that be?

MR CILLIERS: I think all the arrangements will be made within that time then available yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally how does that strike you?

MR VALLY: That seems to an eminently suitable arrangement Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Shall we then adjourn for tea until eleven and at eleven we will take the evidence of Mr Swanepoel.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS