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

CHAIRPERSON: Are you ready to ...(intervention)

MR VALLY: Yes Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Just from a process point of view Mr Vally, I do not know if this wouldn't be an appropriate time for Mr Cilliers to place on record his position with regard to this morning in view of developments that have taken place, so that, you know, the record should be straight with regard to it.  Mr Cilliers if you could get yourself to a microphone.
 Mr Cilliers Mr Vally placed several things on record, one of which was that there had been correspondence between himself and Mr Dolf Malan, who I believe is an attorney instructing your good self, and that this correspondence culminated in a letter of yesterday in which he indicated that since we had not received any application papers, except draft application papers, and the expectation was that your client would have to appear before us at nine o'clock today, that prompted us to concede to Mr Vally's entreaties to us to have Mr Basson's name called out three times outside.  And when there was no response from him we were prevailed upon, and we did in fact find that subject to what submissions and representations you might make when you do come, because Mr van Zyl indicated that you might be coming, we were of the prima facie view that there had been a contravention of Section 39 of our Act.  That is the view that is on record.
 It is now an historical fact that you came almost immediately thereafter and you have remained in attendance.   We have since also been told that application papers, in relation to the matter that you had indicated an application would be made had actually been served on us and that seemed to be putting some other colour on the proceedings. It is true that these papers come at a time when we had least expected them because that was not the arrangement, but that is neither here nor there.  The papers are with us now and I think that process will have to take place.
 Now I thought that it would only be fair if you were given an opportunity now, rather than later, to place your own side of the story on record so that we can deal with this matter and get it out of the way.

MR CILLIERS: As it pleases you Chairperson, thank you for the opportunity.
 I didn't see all the correspondence which resulted from the discussions between Mr Chaskalson and Mr Malan, but the import of it, as I understand, was that should the application be served by today then there would be no arrangement for Dr Basson to be present.  I received the papers and the original documents, the stamped documents are here, and according to those papers the application was received by the Master yesterday.  I have no notification as to when it was served but I heard it was at 09H30 this morning that it was received here.  I understood that it was received by the Master yesterday for service, but I can't dispute Mr Vally or Mr Chaskalson's allegation that it was only received this morning.  So as far as I am concerned that if the application had been served and received by yourself in time then there would be no necessity for Dr Basson to appear.  We made the papers available quite some time ago at our corresponding attorneys and unfortunately it cannot be done by means of a fax because the original signed papers must be served.  That is probably what caused the slight delay.  
 To meet the urgency of the matter we, at an early stage, drafted a draft document in identical terms and sent it by means of a fax to Mr Chaskalson so that if certain answers had to be prepared by your office that you could have ample opportunity to do so.  And also to expedite matters we, in respect of the Rule 43 procedures, we deviated from those procedures to save time.  It is a time-consuming process.  As you know it affords parties 30 days to make records available and give parties time to answer etc.  It can take up to three months to prepare the papers.  
 So by agreement with your office, and I am specifically referring to Mr Chaskalson, we followed the Rule 6 procedure which should the answer be available by tomorrow or today we can reply within a couple of days and we could probably be in court already by next week.  
 So Dr Basson isn't here in terms of that arrangement, unfortunately, maybe the Deputy Sheriff only served those papers on your office this morning rather than yesterday as he was requested to do.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cilliers.  Mr Vally do you want to respond to that?

MR VALLY: What I have to say is already on record Mr Chair, there is no need to respond again.

CHAIRPERSON: Shall we then take note that it seems to us, sitting from where we are, that there is an explanation for Dr Wouter Basson's absence before us, and that it seems to us that the process that must now take place should be the one that will be consequent upon the outcome of the application before the High Court.  And to that extent it seems fair to say, in view of arrangements that had been made in the eventuality of an application of the nature that has now been moved in the High Court, it will not be possible for us to call the evidence of Dr Basson.

MR CILLIERS: As it pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally if you will take the evidence of Dr Knobel.

MR VALLY: Thank you.  General Knobel, just to remind you you are still under oath.

DR KNOBEL: Thank you Mr Vally.

DANIEL PETER KNOBEL: (s.u.o.)

MR VALLY: General Knobel we've been going through some of the documents that you've given us and I want to pursue some of the issues raised in those documents.  If we can start with Annexure D.

DR KNOBEL: Mr Vally can I just ask you, has it been clarified that I can discuss the contents of these documents freely?

MR VALLY: I have an understanding with Advocate Arendse that I can discuss these issues with you.  If there are issues relating to proliferation in any of the documents either I will on my own, or Mr Arendse will intervene regarding the publication of these documents to the Press.

DR KNOBEL: Thank you.

MR VALLY: I think Adv Arendse can confirm that.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that was placed on record by Adv Arendse during the course of the morning and the panel accepts that that is the position.

DR KNOBEL: Thank you Mr Vally.

MR VALLY: Thank you General Knobel.
 General Knobel let's go to Annexure D.  Annexure D is a letter from you in response to certain questions asked by the Office for Serious Economic Offences.  If you could start off with paragraph 49.  Do you have it?

DR KNOBEL: Yes I have it.