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

MR CILLIERS: Who gave you that impression?

DR GOOSEN: Doctor Basson.

MR CILLIERS: You see ...[intervention]

MR CHASKALSON: Sorry, Mr Chair ...[intervention]

MR CILLIERS: Because you see, Doctor van Rensburg was part of this research and his evidence was totally different.  Did you hear his evidence?

DR GOOSEN: Yes, I heard that.

MR CILLIERS: Did you hear that it differs from yours?

DR GOOSEN: Yes.

MR CILLIERS: He was the person who was in charge of the project?

DR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR CILLIERS: Can you give an explanation about this difference?

DR GOOSEN: It's easy to give an explanation.  The information flowed through various levels of a need to know.  It is not necessary if Doctor Basson and I discussed the black population and the population growth that we would have provided the same motivation to Doctor van Rensburg or would have given the same information as Doctor Basson.

MR CILLIERS: But if somebody had to obtain such information on a need to know basis, I want to put it to you that my interpretation - I have not been in the Defence Force, I don't know how this need to know principle works, but a logical approach would be that he would be the person who had to know what the intent of this project was.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't think the two things, with respect, are the same.  If I understood, van Rensburg's evidence was that he in his considered opinion as a scientist did not think it was possible to be able to conduct that sort of research but that was his considered opinion and I think that was the tenor of his evidence.
 That does not mean, even if that was his opinion, what this witness says was conveyed to him was not in fact conveyed to him.  All that he was saying was that Wouter Basson said to him: "This is the sort of thing that we must do".  I didn't understand that van Rensburg was saying, also testified to the effect that he as van Rensburg had also been told by whoever that that was the sort of research that must be conducted, isn't that so ...[intervention]

MR CILLIERS: That might be so but the point I'm making is, he has told you about the need to know principle and what I'm putting to him is that logically it seems to me that should that principle be applied, the person who has to be informed on a need to know basis what research had to be undertaken was the person in control of that research and not a person who stood outside the project and the research.  Do you understand?

DR GOOSEN: I understand.  You don't understand the scientific field.  What you said what was conveyed to him was the motivation for the project and not the technical criteria, those are two different things and motivation is one thing.  Why do I need a weapon to shoot that person?  It's not technical specifications what the weapon looked like and the scientists has this specification.

MR CILLIERS: Doctor Goosen, do I understand you correctly that you have known Doctor Neethling for many years and at a certain time you were related by marriage?  Do I understand your evidence, that you said he came to Roodeplaat twice while you were there?

DR GOOSEN: That is correct, yes. ...[intervention] that's what I've said.

MR CILLIERS: You were at Roodeplaat from the beginning to round about 1989?

DR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR CILLIERS: That was the time, a period of six years?

DR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR CILLIERS: And I accept that in the light of your relationship with him that you were even related family by marriage, you would know if he came there on a regular basis?

DR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR CILLIERS: We can accept that for that period, it could have been an instance when you were perhaps absent or you were on leave, we can accept that for that period of six years, twice or perhaps one additionally he visited Roodeplaat, not more than that?

DR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman yes, Roodeplaat is a very big concern and I want to confirm that what is being asked we had a good relationship with him but on a family basis and I have a reasonable idea of his movements and I can confirm that he had a suspicion what was going on there.  We never talked about that directly in the first place.
 And secondly, it is so like you've said, he had the background information that it was a front company and we were involved in various things.  The two times he came there I want to confirm.  The other times he came there, and I want to say again it was a big concern and we had a lot of movement there, but as far as I know I can't differ, I can't confirm it unfortunately because I wasn't there all the time.  He could have come there during the night for example, I cannot vouch for that but as far as I know he was there twice.

MR CILLIERS: Mr Chairman, I do not have any further questions but I want to put it on record that I had a conversation with Mr Chaskalson in this regard and also with Mr Currin, that the opinion was offered that I could not cross-examine witness under instruction of Doctor Mijburgh and Doctor Basson because they are refusing to testify.
 I said it is my opinion that that initial statement by Mr Currin was the correct one and in the light of that I will not ask questions on behalf of those clients.  That is the motivation for that, it is not on the basis that we are accepting the evidence given by this witness regarding those people.  
 I want to place it on record that there are other aspects of conflict between my clients and this witness but I am not going to spend anymore time on that but it should not be regarded as acceptance.  As it please you, I am now finished.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CILLIERS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Currin?

MR CURRIN: No questions of this witness Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN

CHAIRPERSON: On the point that has been raised by Mr Cilliers, the first point?

MR CURRIN: Certainly that is my view that - with regard to cross-examination?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR CURRIN: We discussed that on the basis of my client Doctor Lourens and I suggested that I didn't think that they, if for example Doctor Basson was not going to testify, that he should then be able to cross-examine Doctor Lourens on the basis that he couldn't say to Doctor Lourens: "This is what my client is going to put to you" and we agreed that was probably the correct situation.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaskalson, do you want to say anything on this, on the election that the defence or the representatives of Mr ...[intervention]

MR CHASKALSON: I don't have anything further to add.  I would have just thought that it would have been proper if cross-examination was to be done, for some sort of version to be put and that is obviously going to put them in a difficult position.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  I don't think the situation calls for me or for the panel to make a ruling.  We are not going to make a ruling.  It is a matter of an election.  If the election is premised on what is considered to be a valued legal basis, that is then the election of counsel.  I can only say that the witness is here.  If there are certain things that have been said about those who are represented by counsel which are prejudicial to their clients and it is on record, then the opportunity is now for them to answer those questions.  There are always of course other remedies to guard against prejudice which are embedded in the Act.  Section 30 has been referred to by me on a very frequent basis and unless there are any other questions from the panel ...  Miss Sooka?

YASMINE SOOKA: I have two questions.  Earlier on in Doctor Goosen's evidence he referred to Mr de Klerk promising that he would tell all.  I think I'd like some clarification on that please.