Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-23

MR DU PLESSIS: Section 29.  ... and the same there as an inquiry, and this same question arose and we then fully addressed the Commission on this.  We said that a decision has to be made then and if my client is to be forced to answer certain questions, we will ask leave to approach the Supreme Court of South Africa in this regard, for an order of clarifying at least the position.  We were also told that the matter would be referred by the Commission to the Attorney-General for possible prosecution.  Whether it was done or whether it wasn't done, I don't know, but certainly there was no prosecution up to this stage.  But Mr Basson's position was made clear right from the outset about this and I have advised him and his choice is he's not going to answer to those questions.
	And as I say, at this moment it's in any event highly theoretical because should he disclose any involvement with such deeds and there was for instance, the planning phase etcetera of those incidents if it did take place within the borders of this country, he can be prosecuted here and this Committee cannot grant him amnesty on that.  He obviously, on my learned friend's attitude, will - there will be the possibility, it may be found that he didn't make full disclosure.  I beg to differ about that, and we will fully address the Committee at the end of the proceedings on this.

CHAIRPERSON: I think with regard to the activities of any of the applicants in respect of external projects, whether they don't give a full disclosure on those, constitutes a non-disclosure in the sense of it being relevant to the applications that we are concerned with, will essentially be a question of argument really, and to that extent then the applicant must be aware that there is a possibility that maybe failure to disclose might be found relevant, a non-disclosure of a relevant fact to these applications.  That depends on what has not been disclosed and how compelling the arguments are that we receive at the end of the day.

MR KAHANOVITZ: The problem goes further because once again this witness has been led in-chief and he's asked the question about ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It's been opened up about Lubowski's murder, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Lubowski for instance.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So on the one hand he's allowed to give evidence to deny involvement in Lubowski, on the other hand if we start cross-examining on the basis of the available evidence in relation to what was going on in Namibia, he's going to refuse to answer questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and the usual rule is if you open up something in your evidence-in-chief, then you also open up yourself to being questioned on it.  But I think, Mr Kahanovitz, if you could proceed.  You can ask questions, see what the attitude is and ...  I do however believe, and I think we've mentioned this before, that the fine details of operations that are not relevant to these ones, aren't really an issue here.  We're not going to make any findings in regard to any other project other than the ones that we are concerned with as subject matters here.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Except, with respect Mr Chairman, insofar as credibility is involved ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and the bigger conspiracy theory and all that sort of thing, but that is again a question of argument.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes.  I mean the one, the example being for instance, Mhlaba, was there indeed such a plot if they all deny it and they're not telling the truth?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It's relevant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what I'm saying is, it's not relevant as to what sort of poison was used etcetera, to the merits of that particular application which is not subject here.  The fine detail.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I'm going to put certain questions, if he refuses to answer, he refuses to answer them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And we're going to argue at the end ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that's the way to go and then we can carry on.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Aright.  Now Mr ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I' being - Mr Lax would just ...
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF
ON RESUMPTION

MR LAX: Just two things, Mr Basson.  The first is that whatever the Generals or the Ministers may have said or decided at whatever point in history, is totally irrelevant to us here in this inquiry.  You're not bound by any such policy.  You have a duty to make whatever full disclosure is required of you and if they have told you to keep quiet, that's irrelevant here.  And if your decision not to disclose information is based on any such perceived obligation, that's of no relevance to us.  So whatever decision you make, that's on your own head in that regard, but you're not obliged by that policy or duty that they may have determined for you.

WOUTER J BASSON: I accept it as such, Chairperson.

MR LAX: The second thing is on the issue of self incrimination.  There is a section in our statute which says that any evidence that flows from these proceedings, or a self incriminatory nature, cannot be used in any other court in this country.  So bear that in mind as well.

WOUTER J BASSON: Very well, Chairperson.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now Mr Nel's evidence is that project "Direksie" concerned a plan to break the Smiths - and I'll deal with the names of some other people later in the cross-examination, but to break certain people out of prison in Zimbabwe.

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, I'm not going to answer questions about external operations.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now I also take it from what you've said about Roland White, that there was a - that Mr White was a possible target for the CCB.

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes, but ...(intervention)

MR KAHANOVITZ: But it was decided not to go ahead.

WOUTER J BASSON: That's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: He was a possible target for what form of action?

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, it could have been any disruptive act.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well what is your recollection, was it assassination, breaking his window?

WOUTER J BASSON: No, no decision had been made with regard to any method of disruption, at that stage.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now the burning of Mr Roskam's car, what was the purpose of that project?

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, it's a typical active disruption where the person had to get a message that somebody is aware of his activities and he should take care.

MR KAHANOVITZ: What were his activities?

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, I can't remember all these things, I don't have the information in front of me.  What I've seen here is that he was the Chairperson of the SRC, more than that I cannot say.  I cannot recall.

CHAIRPERSON: How was his car burnt, do you know?  Or where?

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, I can't ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: If I come to my car after this hearing and it's burnt, I might just think that it was burnt, it doesn't necessarily send a message to me that somebody's after me.

WOUTER J BASSON: I understand your statement, I cannot remember the context, the circumstances, maybe you should ask the operative who was involved, I cannot remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kahanovitz.

MR LAX: Sorry, before you go.
	Just with regard to Mr Roskam, I mean just being the Chairperson of the Wits SRC, was not in and of itself anything unsavoury.

WOUTER J BASSON: You are quite correct, there had to be other connotations, whether radical or whatever, but I cannot remember, Chairperson.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Insofar as it may be of assistance to the Committee, the Roskam incident is dealt with by Judge Els in the Barnard case.  I'll give you the page references after lunch, I don't want to waste time now.
	Now what was your military rank at the time that you joined the CCB?

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, I tried to explain to you ...(intervention)

MR KAHANOVITZ: No, no, at the time - I know you ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think he said he was a Captain.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Were you a Captain?