Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-23

WOUTER J BASSON: The purpose was that Mr van Zyl was to use his infrastructure, in this case Isgak, Isgak had to place this thing on his own, he also had to do the activation of the limpet mine.  That was the method, that you don't become directly involved.  And the specific instruction was minimum loss of life or no loss of life.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Yes you just have to consider what you say, is it minimum loss of life or no loss of life?

WOUTER J BASSON: No loss of life.  That was the order, but you're naive if you think that is not possible that somebody for instance could have decided to stay in the Centre for longer or sleep there or whatever, so that's how it was.

MR P DU PLESSIS: So what you're saying is that the order was that there should be no loss of life, but you're not trying to allege that there was no realisation that there might be injuries?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes, definitely.

MR P DU PLESSIS: So that actually concludes the four matters for which you're applying for amnesty.  Just to deal with your further actions at the CCB and the Security bodies.  After this bomb explosion and towards the end of '89, there were certain developments as a result of which Mr Barnard was arrested and Mr Calla Botha was arrested, how did that develop further, what was the result of the CCB activities?  Did it continue?

WOUTER J BASSON: No.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Were there further projects?

WOUTER J BASSON: No, I can't remember specifically when Mr Botha and Mr Barnard had been arrested, but I think even before they were arrested we looked specifically at - I think with a view to Mr de Klerk taking over, we looked at the rationalisation of projects.  In other words the idea was that projects had to be reduced.  It was actually a period of waiting and I confirm that Region 6 at that stage had no involvement in the carrying out of offensive projects.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Does that also appear from the diary?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes, I think so, I think if you turn through the diary you would actually find a date, a relevant date.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Now just to look at two specific instances where fingers were pointed at Region 6, that's the Webster case in 1 May 1989, that took place on that date and you were the Co-ordinator of Region 6.  Are you aware of the involvement of Region 6 specifically or any region in which you were involved, in the Webster case?

WOUTER J BASSON: No, at that stage I didn't know at all.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Of course you can also talk about regions in which you were involved as a result of the need-to-know basis on which you operated?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes, I was certain that Region 6 and the people who I knew were not involved.

MR P DU PLESSIS: And you personally were not involved?

WOUTER J BASSON: Definitely not.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Reference was also made to the matter of Adv Lubowski that does not fall within the borders of South Africa, he was killed outside the country.  I think it was the 12th of September '89.  He was killed in Windhoek.  Did you have any involvement in that murder?

WOUTER J BASSON: No, no involvement.

MR P DU PLESSIS: And are you aware of anyone within the structure of which you formed a part, who was so involved?

WOUTER J BASSON: No.

MR P DU PLESSIS: You've already told us that rationalisation had taken place and that Region 6 did not continue with any operational actions after FW de Klerk took over as Head of State.  Did you then break off all contact and bonds with the CCB?

WOUTER J BASSON: There was an investigation I remember, early in 1990, the Harms Commission of Inquiry was appointed and then for a considerable period after that I was still involved in the CCB.  It was myself and a couple of people whose objective it was to manage the projects, so as to hand over people who could still be used, useful people.  So it was purely a period in which I was still paid by the CCB or the State to help to manage the CCB.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Yes, it's the winding down of the administrative components, dismissal of people, payments that had to be made, disbursements made to the people.

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: But it was all done in the open, these things weren't done covertly?  ...(transcriber's interpretation)

WOUTER J BASSON: That's entirely correct.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Now after - well, did you resign from the CCB?

WOUTER J BASSON: No, it wasn't - well we were given a choice, people could either resign with a package or they could be re-employed at other structures in the Defence Force and most people took exercised the option of the retrenchment package.

MR P DU PLESSIS: And you yourself?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes, that was my choice too, I took the package.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Were you re-employed by any State organisation?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes, round about the middle of '91, yes, the middle of '91 we applied ...(intervention)

MR P DU PLESSIS: You're saying "we".

WOUTER J BASSON: That's myself and Mr Burger.  We applied to the Directorate of Covert Intelligence to become there if they were interested and I worked for them for a year and a half.

MR P DU PLESSIS: This is after you got your retrenchment package?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes.  I was involved in handling information, primarily in a neighbouring country.  At the end of '92 I formed part of the group of people ...(intervention)

MR P DU PLESSIS: President de Klerk?

WOUTER J BASSON: We formed part of a group of people - well there was the inquiry, the Goldstone Commission of Inquiry which implicated us and said that we were involved in third force activities, which is entirely untrue, I formed part of another retrenchment from the Defence Force.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Were you re-employed by the State after that?

WOUTER J BASSON: No, I'd had enough at that stage and I left and I started working in a private capacity.

MR P DU PLESSIS: So thereafter you had no further connection with the State or State bodies?

WOUTER J BASSON: No, not at all.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Perhaps just one further aspect I have to cover with you.
	Firstly, you were part of the proceedings before the Harms Commission.

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: You were represented by Adv Flip Hattingh as leader of the legal team.

WOUTER J BASSON: That's correct.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Now I'm not going to deal with this specifically, it can be dealt with in cross-examination, but I'm sure you would concede that there were attempts made at covering up the truth and that there were certain details which were not disclosed and they were supposed to have been disclosed.

WOUTER J BASSON: That's quite correct, the chief reason for this was that we were afraid of prosecution.  We were careful not to say more than we actually had to, because at that stage there was no mention of indemnity and there was also pressure from the Defence Force to look at the protection of the organisation by actually just saying the minimum possible.

MR P DU PLESSIS: At that stage Region 6's activities was in the spotlight.

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Whilst there was still a lot of external regions operating?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: What as the fear in this regard?

WOUTER J BASSON: The concern was that because these were internal activities and the gravity of those things  ...(intervention)

MR P DU PLESSIS: But as far as the external regions were concerned, were they disclosed?

WOUTER J BASSON: No, they had not been exposed at all and that was not within the ambit of the Harms Commission, to investigate that.

MR P DU PLESSIS: You, as has already been placed on record, applied for indemnity after the first Act had been promulgated, as I've already said, and you made an affidavit in that respect and that same affidavit is contained or was used in 1996 as the motivation and it was attached to your application and that is now also before the Commission in the year 2000.

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes.