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

MR VAN ZYL: There are - quite a few allegations have been made.  The question is just, or my instructions are, how many of these allegations must be argued.  As far as I am concerned Dr Basson with a pending criminal case we will see about, as opposed to the case with Dr Neethling, Swanepoel and Mijburgh.
 Mr Chairman I think that it should not take more than one or two hours if there were to be any cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaskalson how are you standing, if we are going to be standing the witnesses over till tomorrow, that is assuming we are able to accommodate Mr van Zyl?

MR CHASKALSON: I think we would prefer that cross-examination took place now if your ruling is that it should be held over until the morning.  We can endeavour to make the appropriate arrangements for Dr van Rensburg and we do have another witness on standby who we could proceed with now.  It will however mean that tomorrow's schedule is going to be somewhat congested.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis would your position have been the same?  I am inclined to want to ask for us to adjourn for just a couple of minutes so that the panel can also put their heads together on this issue.

MR DU PLESSIS: My position as regards my client is the same as that of Mr van Zyl.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we adjourn for ten minutes whilst we consider what we should do.  We resume at quarter past four.
HEARING ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Where is Mr Polsen?  Mr Polsen is your client able to be persuaded to remain for cross-examination tomorrow.

MR POLSEN: I think, sorry Mr Chairman, I think he will have to remain.  It seems inevitable.

CHAIRPERSON: Well Dr van Rensburg you are ably represented by Mr Polsen.  May I just indicate the attitude of the panel.  The attitude of the panel, and this will be to you Mr van Zyl and Mr du Plessis, is that whilst we want to be extremely accommodating to all the parties, to the extent that we believe that your clients are in Cape Town, or some of them are, you should endeavour to, if they can't be here then to get instructions from them in a fairly full fashion because we would like to be able to begin and complete a witness as and when they testify.  In fact it is only because Mr Vally indicates that he needs to take the next witness, who I believe will be Dr Odendal, that we as a panel, at his instance have decided we shouldn't insist on a cross-examination of Dr van Rensburg.  We therefore request you to endeavour, from tomorrow onwards, to take instructions so that you are in a position to cross-examine.

MR VAN ZYL: Thank you Mr Chairman.  I would just like to place on record at this stage, and I referred to this yesterday as well, is that the unfortunate position in which we find ourselves, and I understand the circumstances as Mr Vally explained it to me yesterday, that no statements were obtained from these witnesses prior to this, so he cannot decide whether there will be any incriminating evidence or not.  And on that basis I made the request yesterday that if it seems as if there are to be questions that we will be given the opportunity by instructions given to my colleague and I, I am not referring to Mr Cilliers, to stand by our clients in Section 29 to give evidence.  Unfortunately there have been no allegations according to which we can do cross-examination, therefore we have not consulted over those specific aspects and we could not because we did not have the information at our disposal. That is the basis on which we ask for opportunity to consult and to say that they should have been entitled to be given notice in terms of the provisions of the Act and that a prayer ruling, as I've indicated however, three of my clients excluding Colonel Neethling are at present all three in Cape Town.  I will consult with them this evening and as I have indicated I will attempt to do the cross-examination of Dr van Rensburg tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you align yourself with those remarks Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to place anything on record or would you let it by, Mr Vally?

MR VALLY: Just to say that Dr Basson has been subpoenaed for this whole week.  We have by agreement with the legal representatives of Dr Basson agreed that he doesn't have to personally attend except for the days when he will be required to give evidence.  The point I am making is he could have been here and heard the allegations himself.  There is no reason why he couldn't have been here.
 Finally again, there may be a few additional allegations relating to Dr Basson being given by witnesses but, in terms of the documents that we are using, and for example the shopping list or the "verkope lys" which we asked this last witness about, is in the bundle of documents that Dr Basson has.  I am only concerned about one issue, that we are being left hanging.  It's not clear with regard to this witness, they said there will be some issues they want to cross-examine him on.  With regard to other witness there is no clarity.  We are told, I will consult and thereafter I will decide, and if Dr Basson is in town the consultation can take place simultaneously as the hearing.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I hear all of you and I don't want us to be entering into a debate that goes backwards and forwards.  I think the panel is sufficiently au fait of the position.  I just wanted to say maybe ex abundanti cautela you should have your clients in readiness either here or wherever they are, so that if we need to give you an hours time to consult, whatever the time is, then they should be able - I would rather we lose an hour than lose a whole day.
 Do you have a next witness Mr Vally?

WENDY ORR: When are we going to ask questions of Dr van Rensburg?

CHAIRPERSON: Oh by the way there are questions that the panel would like to put to Dr van Rensburg.  Dr Wendy Orr.

WENDY ORR: Dr van Rensburg can I refer you to document TRC48 which I believe is also a list of projects which were conducted at RRL with costing associated with them, is that correct?

DR VAN RENSBURG: TRC48 are simply time sheets.  They illustrate the structure of the company.  Each little research group like the first one is Department of Physiology, is Dr Riana Borman as the head, Maree Wimers, Marie van Vuuren and Paula van Zyl, technologists and so on.  And it's really just a breakdown of time.  It was a controversial system, but these researchers had to try and allocate all their time to specific projects.

WENDY ORR: Can I ask you then what the "begroting" column, round about the middle of that table refers to?

DR VAN RENSBURG: I have looked at this and I can't quite understand what goes on here except that "begroting" is a budget.  It's rands and cents, this is only really rands given here I think.

WENDY ORR: Well that's not crucial to my question.  My question is that on three of the pages and in four different incidents, and it's page 1360, page 1361 and 1362 there is reference to "sampioen" which are mushrooms, and there seems to have been a fairly large amount of money allocated to research into mushrooms, over a million rand, and I wondered if you had any idea what this research constituted?

DR VAN RENSBURG: Could you give me that page again, I don't seem to....

WENDY ORR: 1361, 61 and 62.

DR VAN RENSBURG: I think your document is numbered differently to mine.

CHAIRPERSON: It's still TRC48.

WENDY ORR: It's the last three pages of the document.

DR VAN RENSBURG: Ah yes.

CHAIRPERSON: They are numbered at the top, 001355, 001361 ...(intervention)

DR VAN RENSBURG: No this will be rand, cents, so it will be R5 600.  "Sampioen" whether that is a code name, or whether they actually worked on mushrooms I don't know.