Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-09-26

MR KAHANOVITZ: He says that the reasoning or explanation that was given to him was that FW de Klerk did not know about the nature of the CCB's activities.  In other words, he was suggesting that PW Botha was fully informed about the nature of the CCB's activities, but FW de Klerk wasn't.  Does any of this ring a bell?

WOUTER J BASSON: I do not know, if you could just remind me of when Mr de Klerk took over, in what time period was it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well in relation to the activities that we're dealing with there, Mr van Zyl's evidence concerned the Omar project, and I think we were dealing with the period, I'm open to correction, but September 1989 when the plan reached the stage where he was told by Staal Burger to tell Peaches that the project had been abandoned - just give me a moment Mr Chairman, I can't find the reference - oh, here it is, bundle A page 127, paragraph 63 - no he just talks about, he gives the date there, that in September 1989 he said that the country already had a new State President.  But the evidence, I would have to check the reference of his evidence, where he said that at a particular point in time they came and they said that because of the transition ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think as far as Mr Basson is concerned, correct me if I'm wrong Mr Basson, that whether he's told it was August or July or September is going to make any big difference to his answer.  I think what you've said already, Mr Basson, it was at the stage where Mr van Zyl said that they were told to terminate the Dullah Omar project, about that time.

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, it is possible ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Because there was a change now in the government.

WOUTER J BASSON: It is possible and I have looked at my journal to see if I can find something out and I can see on the 3rd of October, in the journal there's an entry
"In-house presentation.  Rationalising."
and then 13.10 there's another entry, and what happened here is as far as my recollection goes, Mr de Klerk's appointment, I cannot really say what was said in the Defence Force circles up to Webb's level, but the instructions that we received were that we had to rationalise the projects and come forward with a new presentation.  That appears on the 3rd of October.
	Then if I page to a further entry on the 16th of October, that the rationalisation process then took place with the Chairperson.  If that can assist you.  So you can accept that the projects were all terminated at that stage.  I am not aware of specific instructions that came from the system of the Defence Force to us, but what I do know is that basically we had to reveal all projects and possibly with the establishment of a more long-term project or goal in mind.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Can I just understand your evidence.  What, if anything then, did the cessation of these projects have to do with the fact that FW de Klerk had become President?  Or was nothing said to you at the time about that?

WOUTER J BASSON: As I have Mr Chairperson, I am not aware of the plan that came from the politicians to the Defence Force, from the Force to the Special Forces and the CCB, and it could be that they've already decided then that the negotiation process will begin and that all physical projects had to be terminated.  I was not part of that council.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I'm not asking what inference you draw, I just want to know, did anyone ever directly come and say to you "PW Botha knows what we are doing, FW de Klerk doesn't know what we're doing"?

WOUTER J BASSON: No, I cannot remember that, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kahanovitz, would this be a convenient time to take the short tea adjournment?  We'll take a short 20 minute tea adjournment at this stage.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

WOUTER J BASSON: (s.u.o.)

MR KAHANOVITZ: (Cont)
	Mr Basson, did you have an opportunity during the tea break to read pages 184 and 185 of Mr Pauw's book?

WOUTER J BASSON: That's correct, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Does that strike you as being the general sort of information that one would find in the kind of study that the CCB would have compiled?

WOUTER J BASSON: That is correct, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So you have no basis to suggest that what is set out in there is not from an authentic document?

WOUTER J BASSON: I cannot say anything about the correctness of this document, but if it is a pre-study preparation I would say yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Then just to go to the issue that we were talking about before the tea break, if I might refer the Committee to pages 961 and 962 of the record, the cross-examination of Abram van Zyl.  I was asking Mr van Zyl at that stage about his evidence to the effect that he had handed
R10 000 back to Nick, which had previously been handed to Van Zyl in relation to the Omar project, and I asked him why he gave this R10 000 back.  You will see in the middle of the page he says:
"I was requested to do so because as I have already testified, as a result of the fact that the then President PW Botha, had suffered from a heart attack and Mr FW de Klerk had become the new President, our internal projects were all brought to a halt and all funds that were at our disposal we had to give back to the organisation.  And this is the reason why I flew up to give him the money back and also to get the powder back from him."
And then you'll see on the following page I put another question to him, I say:
"Mr van Zyl, the evidence that was given at the Harms Commission was something along the following lines.  It was said that PW Botha knew about the CCB and their activities, but FW de Klerk didn't.  So that when FW de Klerk became the State President, until such time as he was informed, the CCB would not, as far as internal activities were concerned, would not conduct any further internal activities.  Was that your understanding?"
and his answer is:
"That is correct."
Now what comment do you have to make about what Mr van Zyl says here?

WOUTER J BASSON: Mr Chairperson, once again it is Mr van Zyl's words, it was never said to me directly that Mr PW Botha knew and that Mr de Klerk did not.  The further inference that all projects had to be terminated, could be the truth, yes, because as I referred you back to the entry in my journal when we talked about the presentation and the rationalisation, this would then spell out our further applications.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Basson, I'm a bit confused as to why you are so unclear, it would seem to me that if your superiors had come to you on a particular day and said "Gentlemen, all internal projects are now being stopped", for the reasons that Mr van Zyl mentions here, that would have been a memorable event.  Do you agree with me?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes, it would be so, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Excuse me?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes, it's so.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yet you don't remember such an event having taken place, your evidence appears to be if I understand it, that you infer that it might have happened, on the other hand you're not really sure.

WOUTER J BASSON: To tell you the truth I cannot recall if those were the specific words, that all projects had to be terminated.  I cannot recall it.  What I can recall is that all projects had to be reviewed and re-applied in the rationalisation process.

CHAIRPERSON: But just talking now about Region 6, Mr Basson, the impression that I certainly get is that Region 6, it took some time for it to become operational, people had to set themselves up, etcetera, you had quite a few direct members and very few actual completed projects, bearing in mind the time that it had been in existence.  It would seem strange then that those few projects that had got off the ground and were in the process, should be terminated or consolidated or re-organised, or whatever it is.  Because from what you've said and other applicants have said here, there wasn't a great deal of activity in Region 6.