Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-09-26

WOUTER J BASSON: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, at that stage there were no real operations that had to be terminated.  So that is why I do not recall the fact that everything had to be terminated, because there was nothing outstanding, nothing had to happen.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kahanovitz.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see your evidence has been, projects now had to be taken back to Gen Webb for reconsideration, correct?

WOUTER J BASSON: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: In other words, until Gen Webb had reconsidered the project and given his go-ahead, no steps were to be taken, no further steps would be taken in relation to internal projects, is that correct?

WOUTER J BASSON: That's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You surely, as the Co-ordinator who'd been responsible for previously obtaining authority and approval for certain of those projects, you'd want to know why, why is this being done.

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I think that with the political dispensation of Mr de Klerk that  ...(intervention)

MR KAHANOVITZ: Can I just stop you, I don't want to know what you guessed or inferred.  My question to you is, at the time you must have asked somebody "excuse me, you're telling me we must now go back to Gen Webb, why?"  You must have asked someone.

WOUTER J BASSON: Because Gen Webb had to review the application of Special Forces or the structure that was created at that stage had to be conveyed to the political people involved.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Who told you that the projects must be resubmitted to Gen Webb?

WOUTER J BASSON: It could have come from Mr Verster.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I assume he gave you a reason.

WOUTER J BASSON: Can you just repeat?

MR KAHANOVITZ: I assume Col Verster came to you and he said to you "Mr Basson, all projects must be resubmitted to Gen Webb for the following reason."

WOUTER J BASSON: Can I just say that the whole CCB structure, that is not only our section, it was the whole CCB that had to rationalise.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Can you answer the question, what did Col Verster tell you, what reason did he give to you as to why all projects had to be resubmitted?

WOUTER J BASSON: Mr Chairperson, I cannot specifically recall what the reason was for it.  It could be that the political dispensation changed and that what existed had to be conveyed to the new dispensation.  I cannot specifically recall what he said.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see, Gen Webb says that the transition from Botha to De Klerk, had no impact whatsoever on his approach to operations.  He said, and he was asked about that, he gave absolutely no evidence about projects having to be resubmitted to him because of the change of State President, and his attitude in his evidence was that this was not a relevant factor, he doesn't know where Van Zyl got this from.  Now if Gen Webb knows nothing about this, how could Joe Verster have come to tell you that all projects must be resubmitted to Gen Webb?

WOUTER J BASSON: Mr Chairperson, as I've said before and I do not want to repeat myself, that is what I understood, that the rationalisation had to take place and we had to convey this to the Chairperson.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You'll agree with me someone's got to be lying?

WOUTER J BASSON: Mr Chairperson, I cannot answer you further on that.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Do you agree with me somebody has to be lying?  The two versions are entirely inconsistent.

WOUTER J BASSON: It does seem like it, yes.  I'm telling you that I got instructions like all the other districts that we had to rationalise and I cannot specifically recall if it was presented to the Chairperson or not.  I made certain entries in my journal, also where I crossed it out, we had to postpone the date every time and then on a specific day it mentions rationalisation and I do believe it occurred on that day.  If somebody denies it, it's got nothing to do with me.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You don't if by any chance this evidence was evidence that was also, further evidence that was manufactured for the Harms Commission, in order to protect FW de Klerk?

WOUTER J BASSON: I do not understand the question, can you please repeat it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: We know that a considerable amount of evidence was manufactured for the Harms Commission, you were party to that process.  Correct?

WOUTER J BASSON: Partly, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes.  Was there any discussion at the time as to 'let's blame this on PW Botha so that FW de Klerk can be given a clean bill of health'?

WOUTER J BASSON: I do not know, I was not part of those inner circle discussions or arguments.

MR KAHANOVITZ: On the same page 961 to 962, maybe as the Co-ordinator of Region 6 you can also explain to me whether Mr van Zyl's evidence about the Omar project makes sense.  You'll see I put it to him at the bottom of page 961 that his evidence about the Omar incident is entirely contradictory.  I said to him
"If all projects were being stopped, how could you be continuing with the execution of a project to murder Adv Omar?"
and his answer is:
"I had permission to continue with that project from the Regional Manager because it was an authorised project.  I think you must understand that no new projects were being submitted that could have been executed.  No new submissions were made from the 1st of September."
Now according to your evidence, if every project had to be resubmitted to the Chairman, well van Zyl would not have been allowed to continue with the execution of the Omar project until such time as Webb had given fresh approval.

WOUTER J BASSON: That's correct, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And if we follow your version, it is inconceivable that Webb - well I suppose we must go back one step because Webb says he didn't approve this project in the first place, but Van Zyl's evidence, can it be true where he says that the Regional Manager told him that even though all projects had been ceased, he could continue with this project because it was a previously authorised project?  Do you see his evidence?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes, I can see it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: That can't be so, if we follow your evidence.

WOUTER J BASSON: Mr Chairperson, I was part of the initial presentation on the murder of Omar, but at the stage when the alternative or the different methods were discussed, I was not part of that.  With the methods that were supposed to be used, I was not part of that, I was more involved in Region 2.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You know Mr Basson, I'm going to argue at the end of this case that every time I ask you a question where the answer that you have to give is one that would contradict of your co-operatives, you immediately give an evasive answer.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman with respect, this has been Mr Basson's evidence all along, that at a certain stage he was involved with Region 2 and that there were other people, and we also find that in the evidence of other witnesses, that there were other persons involved as Co-ordinators.  How can Mr Kahanovitz ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I think Mr Kahanovitz said that that's what he's going to be arguing and now you're arguing back, perhaps we can keep this argument to when there's ...(intervention)

MR P DU PLESSIS: But what Mr Kahanovitz is putting to the witness is not correct and he cannot do that.

MR LAX: With respect to both of you, the witness hasn't answered the question yet.  The question was of a general nature, it didn't relate to specific projects.  The question was, in the light of what Van Zyl says here and in the light of what you say, there are two incompatible versions in essence.
	You're saying that you were told to evaluate all projects and that was the instruction you knew of, correct?

WOUTER J BASSON: That's correct, yes.

MR LAX: What he says is that all authorised projects had to be completed, only new projects couldn't be commenced, well that's completely different to your understanding, isn't that so?

WOUTER J BASSON: That is so ...(intervention)