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

MR DU PLESSIS: If you did not pay them then surely they did it for free, not so?

DR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, maybe I can elaborate a little bit on this point in time.  I had an expansion in the family due to my second marriage and extra children and we decided to have some alterations on my home.  Now this was normal procedure, for the company to support, subsidise and give loans for this type of operation. I applied to the company above board for assistance in these expansions and I tried to look for builders and shop around for work done.
 The Director of Administration who handles this application said: "Man look Daan", this was Dawid Sparmer, he said: "Look Daan why don't you use Geoff Irons, he's on the site and he helped me with some alterations at my home, so you might just as well use him.  So I said: "Look, I don't want to create a problem financially or an embarrassment or whatever for the company", so he said: "No, you are within your rights to contract him".  
 I approached Geoff and Geoff said: "Look man, I will do this work for you for nothing", so I said: "Geoff, I cannot do this, I will get a subsidy from the company for this" and he said alright he will do it and he will render me a bill for the services and a contract and the invoices for what we've used and his services which would have been submitted.  I think it was in the region, the figures I have in mind is R17 000 and R22 000.  Now Mr Chairman, this whole thing was in 1988 and in the time when I had the management's problems and what I've described this morning, the - as Doctor Swanepoel said, was dismissed from the company, from service.  That was during that period in time and I wasn't furnished with the final bill or a final inspection or bill from the builder.  As soon as the builder can furnish me with the bill I will try and pay it.  I will speak to Geoff immediately and say we can carry on with this.  I haven't got the money to do it at the moment because I think Volkskas will take all the first money I get but if I do get some of my pension money, which I believe I ...[indistinct] from the government still, I might even pay him sooner.

MR DU PLESSIS: Doctor you have given us a long explanation but you have still not answered the question.  I can deduce the answer to the question but the fact of the matter is that you did not pay the builders, is that correct?  That is all I want to know.

DR GOOSEN: I have not yet paid the builder, he has never yet requested the money finally.

MR DU PLESSIS: Have you ever asked him for a final account Doctor Goosen?

DR GOOSEN: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Why not, because you supposed he would do it for you for nothing, is that not so?

DR GOOSEN: I do not know whether the company felt bad about the way in which they treated me and paid him.  Doctor Swanepoel had contact with me several times and never referred to the matter again until now, that it is still an outstanding matter.  But once again, these are the facts of the matter, I have not yet paid him, I have thought about it a great deal, I've never been in the position to pay him, I do not have a pension nor a medical fund.

MR DU PLESSIS: That is not the point Doctor.

DR GOOSEN: I have not yet been able to pay him, even if I had wanted to and that's the point.

MR DU PLESSIS: There was evidence ...[intervention]

DR GOOSEN: The point of the matter is I couldn't have paid him because I wasn't financially in the position to pay him.  Whenever I have the money I will pay him.

MR DU PLESSIS: Doctor Goosen, let's go back a few steps.  There has been testimony that you did not pay the builder, we have determined that, that you have not yet paid him up to this day because there was an agreement that you entered into with him that this would be free but you did claim the subsidy at the company on the costs of what it would cost to make these alterations.  So Doctor Swanepoel lied when he said you received the subsidy?

DR GOOSEN: I did receive the subsidy.

MR DU PLESSIS: But why have you just denied it?

DR GOOSEN: The subsidy has been paid back in the meantime.  I deny the fact of the matter that I entered into an agreement with the builder to do it for free.

MR DU PLESSIS: That is not the point, as to whether you repaid the subsidy.  The fact of the matter is that you were blatantly dishonest towards the company.  You committed fraud towards the company to claim a subsidy on costs which you never incurred, that is the point, not so?

DR GOOSEN: No comment.

MR DU PLESSIS: Don't you want to reply to that or can't you?

DR GOOSEN: I differ on the agreement and if it's important we can get Mr G D Irons from Pretoria here,  he is the contractor, and hear what the agreement was.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, I don't know how far you want to test the credibility of this witness.

MR DU PLESSIS: I won't take the point much further Mr Chairman, just another aspect that I want to take up with Doctor Goosen because that is the primary cause of these management problems which arose in the company, it's because he was dishonest with the company.
 Is that not so Doctor Goosen?

DR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, do I need to answer that?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you have to unfortunately.

DR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, this is an allegation which I deny.

MR DU PLESSIS: But you do agree that you claimed a subsidy on amounts that you did not spend, you agree with that?

DR GOOSEN: And that, the reason why it did not happen is that I was retrenched or dismissed before the matter could be finalised.  Before finalising this outstanding matter I was dismissed from the company, and the subsidy has been paid back.

MR DU PLESSIS: Doctor, why did you not - you are coming here now and you want to tell the Commission exactly what happened, why did you not take them into your confidence and also present these facts to the Commission, that you were dishonest towards your company?

DR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, please I ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, no, that is a conclusion that we must come to.  The question of whether the witness was dishonest is a conclusion that we must draw from the way in which he has conducted himself.  I think you have really put your point and I'm sure the panel has taken note of the discrepancies and you can be sure that you can proceed onto something else.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
 There was further evidence that while you were still in the services of RRL, that you did private work of which you did not let the income go to the company, is that also correct?  You used the company's facilities but the income you kept for yourself?

DR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, I'm not exactly too sure what the question relates to.  I was involved in some ventures outside of the company, so were some of the other Directors.  So please, if he could elaborate, if he was referring to the embryo project we can carry on with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Well?

MR DU PLESSIS: Doctor Goosen, the question is very simple, you did projects which you did not do through the company, you used the company's facilities for that, in other words the facilities, the personnel and the equipment and the funds that you received for that you kept for yourself.  The question is simply, is that true or not?  I did not ask you whether other people in the company did the same, I'm asking you whether you did it.

DR GOOSEN: I haven't received money using company equipment if it wasn't accounted for, not as far as I can remember at the moment but I'm sure we will hear about it now.

CHAIRPERSON: But the proposition is very, very simple, you used the facilities of the company in order to earn funds or money which you never, for yourself, in other words, for which you did not account to the company.  Did you do that?