Special Hearings — Chemical And Biological Warfare Hearings — 1998-06-12

DANIEL PETER KNOBEL: I am coming to that.  One of the issues that was recognised in '78, '79 was the fact that within the Defence Force we also had special forces, we also had parachute forces and we also had a commitment which was based on an agreement that existed between the Defence Force and the Police Service, that any member, and it's written into the Defence Act, by the way, that any member of the Defence Force could be deployed in support of the Police Services, or for that matter in support of any department in the country with the approval of the departmental heads.
 Now for Special Forces and Parabat Forces and the Police Services it was very clear that there would be a need of a specially trained medical component which would have the same capabilities, in other words would be able to also be dropped by air, or to take part in small team operations or deployments and which would be able to give the professional medical support that was required.
 So at that time I realised that we were going to have to look at a special force element which at that time was really just a vision, but that that would have to be developed at a later stage.  General Nieuwoudt was particularly keen that the Medical Service should learn the skills of abseiling; of parachuting; of being dropped into the ocean and being deployed with divers and being deployed with all elements of Special Forces.  I say it was only a vision.
 One of the things that then emerged that there would also have to be a very specialised knowledge about aviation medicine; about diving medicine; about chemical, biological and radiation defence, because at that time there was also a nuclear capability that had to be dealt with.  General Neethling spoke about the ABC yesterday, it was really NBC, nuclear, biological and chemical.
 So '78, '79 there was a clear indication that if this was going to be a fourth arm with a comprehensive support system it would have to have that kind of capability.  That's the first part of your question.
 The second part is, in 1983, when I was appointed as Chief of Medical Staff Force application and began to accept the responsibility of the deployment of all the new elements within the Medical Service one of my responsibilities was to allocate elements of the Medical Service to those forces that I have mentioned.  
 At the same time I was invited by General Nieuwoudt to attend a briefing that he and Dr Basson was going to give to the Minister of Defence here in Cape Town during the Parliamentary session on the Defence budget.  The exact date I can't remember.  I think it was in May 1983. At that briefing and on the way to the briefing I was informed by General Nieuwoudt that this project was in existence.  I was given a broad background of how it had originated; of the authority given by the Minister of Defence that this project could be run, and that we were now going to brief the Minister on the state of where this project stood.
 I was then informed of the mandate of the project and I was informed of the planning with regard to the establishment of covert companies.

MR VALLY: So whilst you were aware of a broad, initially of a broad need for a defence capability regarding what you call NBC, nuclear, biological and chemical weapons you got told of front companies and when you say the project are you referring to a specific project?

DANIEL PETER KNOBEL: Yes this was Project Cloud.

MR VALLY: Project Cloud ...(intervention)

DANIEL PETER KNOBEL: I beg your pardon, Project Coast, I beg your pardon Mr Chairman.

MR VALLY: Project Coast.

DANIEL PETER KNOBEL: Yes.

MR VALLY: On the way to a briefing in 1983?

DANIEL PETER KNOBEL: That's correct.

MR VALLY: Prior to that you didn't know anything about Project Coast?

DANIEL PETER KNOBEL: Nothing.

MR VALLY: Now I asked you earlier about the professional statutory obligations of certain of the professions who were within the Defence Force, as Surgeon-General and as a member of the Defence Force for some time were members of the Defence Force subjected to the normal laws governing, for example, medicines and related substances?  I am referring to Act 101 of the Medicines and Related Substances Act.  I am referring to the Abuse of Habit-forming Substances Act.  Were members of the Defence Force governed by those Acts as well?

DANIEL PETER KNOBEL: I know of nobody who is not governed by those Acts Mr Vally.

MR VALLY: Whether or not a superior officer gave you instructions or not, if you were in contravention of those Acts it would be a crime.  And if you, as Surgeon-General, were aware of it you would internally discipline the person, secondly reported them to their professional bodies?

DANIEL PETER KNOBEL: That's correct.  May I say something else about that?

MR VALLY: Sure.

DANIEL PETER KNOBEL: I was informed by the Surgeon-General that he had clarified this with the Ministry of Defence, that he had discussions with the Ministry of Law and Order and that he in fact had discussions with members of the Medical Council about this.  I was satisfied that we were acting within the agreements that had been reached.
 You had a long discussion yesterday with General Neethling about that very point, you heard what he had indicated in that regard.

MR VALLY: Right.  We will come back to that because as you perceive it's a problem for us.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally shouldn't - I believe you are getting to a new point.  I would suggest that this should be a convenient stage to take the tea adjournment.  It's a disjointed day but it's been forced upon us.  We will take time to consider also the Botha case which we have now received.  We will reconvene at eleven.
HEARING ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen we have now resumed.  We are now ready to hand down a ruling in the application that was brought on behalf of Dr Basson and Dr Mijburgh and the present witness then formally stands down for the duration of that ruling.  The ruling will be made by Advocate Potgieter.
R U L I N G
 An application has been made on behalf of Dr Wouter Basson and Dr Mijburgh essentially to stay the taking of their evidence pending an application to a higher court either for a review or for a decision or ruling that they must be called to the stand or for declaring or challenging the constitutionality of the provisions of the Act in terms of which they are being called. Argument has been addressed to us very briefly and we invited both counsel to indicate to us whether there would be any prospects of a success of an application such as is envisaged. 
 We have come to the unanimous view that there are no reasonable prospects of success in any application of the nature envisaged and therefore our ruling is that the two doctors should be available during the course of today for them to testify and that they should remain in attendance throughout the course of the day. 
 It is our view, however, that having begun with the evidence of General Knobel we should proceed taking that evidence until such time as you are able to get to the evidence of Dr Basson and or Dr Mijburgh. But that our ruling is that they must be available to testify as and when we come to them.

MR CILLIERS: Mr Chairman just regarding a procedural arrangement. Have you made any decision till what time you want to continue today. We have serious problems with flight arrangements. At this stage there is an indication that we would only be available until four 'o clock this afternoon, that is me and my colleague. Do you intend to like the previous four evenings to continue till late, seven 'o clock or eight 'o clock or what is your attitude at this stage?