Special Hearings — Chemical And Biological Warfare Hearings — 1998-07-29

ADV POTGIETER: That is important for us. That is why we have asked you to testify so that we can get the facts of the matter, so that we can know on what we can base a postponement.  In other words tomorrow is completely out of the question, if you get your choice of legal representation then I accept that you are saying that Advocate Cilliers is the person and the only person, the only legal representative who is in a position to protect your interests during these proceedings between now and Friday?
 Let's take this first, do I understand this correctly?

WOUTER BASSON: I am saying that Advocate Cilliers is the most competent and the best informed legal representative to fulfil this task satisfactorily.

ADV POTGIETER: In other words you wanted him to represent you?

WOUTER BASSON: Yes that's correct, but I also indicated that I am busy to investigate alternative options.  I am looking at alternative legal representatives, acquiring them in the first place and then giving them instructions so that they can represent me in a satisfactory way.  I am not unwilling to assist the Committee but I am staring long litigation in the face.  Even though the Committee wants to assure me that none of these proceedings here will ever be used against me or will have any negative effect on the pending litigation, it is not my experience of the legal system of the country.

ADV POTGIETER: Good, let's leave that there for the moment.  Let's sort out this situation.  You are in other words saying it is not your position that you insist on Advocate Cilliers representing you, you are investigating other alternatives.  As far as Advocate Cilliers is concerned it is possible that he will be able to be here on Friday.  You are investigating other alternatives but you don't have any specifics concerning these other alternatives you are investigating, is that correct?

WOUTER BASSON: No it is not correct to say that I don't have any particulars. I do not know if I can, at this stage, involve people or name people without my having cleared it with them first.

ADV POTGIETER: It is important for me that you must tell us is it possible for you to have legal representation tomorrow?  The Chairman has stressed the essence of the time.  What are the possibilities that you will be able to have legal representation tomorrow?

WOUTER BASSON: As I have already said Advocate Cilliers is definitely not available.  Advocate van Zyl is busy with a case in which sometimes these things last half an hour a day or two or three days instead of one day, so he could not tell me when exactly he would be finished.  He will inform me about his position sometime during the day.  He would have been the second choice after Advocate Cilliers because he has been informed in a broader perspective, but I do feel that he is not informed to such an extent that he can give me the satisfactory protection that I need.
 Advocate de Jager was peripherally involved, he was only involved in the last application and in that his main purpose was to argue the question of the right to remain silent.  He did not need a factual basis for this argument.  He did not see any of the documents.
 Advocate van Zyl during his acting for other people in front of the Commission has had insight into some of the documentation so that would make it a bit easier.

ADV POTGIETER: These are then the only possibilities that you are looking at, Advocates Cilliers, van Zyl and de Jager?

WOUTER BASSON: Those are the three I am looking at in the definition of "satisfactory legal representation".  Anything else will for me, as a person, be unsatisfactory.  It would make me feel unprotected.  It is not impossible that I will have to decide to walk down that road, but for me personally it would be unsatisfactory.  I would not feel protected in my own perception.

ADV POTGIETER: And to complete the list, Mr Malan, what is the position?

WOUTER BASSON: Mr Malan has been involved throughout in the administrative part of the proceedings.  Due to the numerous clients he had he did not have the time or the ability, and I am not talking about his intellectual ability, it's just his physical, the physical time to inform himself completely about the facts.

ADV POTGIETER: In other words Dr Basson, the possibility is that come Friday not one of these three advocates would be available to represent you.  And it seems to be a fact that not one of them will be available for tomorrow.

WOUTER BASSON: You ask me a question that I cannot answer.  I cannot answer on behalf of other people.  I can express my appreciation of legal help that I am trying to arrange but these people are involved with their own programmes and I am trying to find a solution.  It seems that my legal representative has other information that I do not have regarding Mr Cilliers availability.

ADV POTGIETER: Were you throughout aware that the possibility exists that this situation that you are facing today that the Commission would ask for a counter-order to force you to testify whether or not you file for an appeal?

WOUTER BASSON: I am aware of the Commission's counter-application and I took notice of the implications thereof.  I also took notice of the fact that the legal representatives I had have unequivocally in our affidavit said that they would not be available today.  At that stage when I received notice I started investigating alternatives.  I approached the Defence Force and I was told by the Legal Department of the Defence Force that they would not consider appointing alternatives due to the costs involved in preparation.  The cost of the appearance, I gathered that they would be willing to pay for the appearance but they would not finance the preparation. That was told to me by the Legal Department of the Defence Force.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Sooka.

YASMINE SOOKA: Dr Basson I would like to understand what you are saying.  Initially I understood that the basis for the postponement was because you were not going to be given proper legal assistance.  But if I hear what you told my colleague, Advocate Potgieter, it seems that the only basis upon which you are going to appear before us is if one of those three counsels is available.

WOUTER BASSON: That is not what I said.  I would like to repeat what I have said.  I said that for me personally the optimal solution would be to have Advocate Cilliers available.  I would be prepared to make certain concessions to my right to legal representation in that I would accept somebody who is less informed about the subject.  But I also later on told Advocate Potgieter that after these options have been exhausted I would possibly consider appointing somebody who is not completely informed, who is satisfactorily informed about the facts.  I would consider using somebody like that and we are in the process of investigating that option.

YASMINE SOOKA: Could you tell me when you became aware of the fact that neither of these three would be available to assist you today?

WOUTER BASSON: If you read my affidavit you will see that during the filing of the affidavit I had been aware of the fact that not one of them would be available for today.

YASMINE SOOKA: Could you give me the precise date please?

WOUTER BASSON: I cannot remember the date.

YASMINE SOOKA: It is the 22nd of July, if I understand correctly.

WOUTER BASSON: If you say so, it is correct.

YASMINE SOOKA: Would you call yourself a responsible person?

WOUTER BASSON: I am not sure what this question has to do with the question of postponement.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you answer the question Dr Wouter Basson, please.  It is a legitimate question put to you by ...(intervention)

WOUTER BASSON: Yes.

YASMINE SOOKA: Do you appreciate the nature of the proceedings that are being held against you?

WOUTER BASSON: Yes.