Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-23

MR KAHANOVITZ: But Mr Basson, if any one of these people had even a low IQ, you ask them for five names, one of those names is Gavin Evans, a month later Gavin Evans dies, do you think someone like Mr Nel is so stupid as not to draw the link between those two events?

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, it was a technique that I used, how watertight it was a person can debate about today.  How else would I have got particulars about a person, except running the risk of him maybe finding out about it later?  ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR KAHANOVITZ: I'm just putting it to you that the version that you're giving that names on these lists were added merely to, certain of them to sow confusion in the minds of your co-operatives in the Intelligence Services, really makes no sense.

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, if you want to know if there was a project on Mr J Naidoo, no there was not a project on Mr J Naidoo.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright, so now you say Mr Naidoo's name when you requested information from Mr Nel, his name was included in order to confuse Mr Nel as to who the real intended target was?

WOUTER J BASSON: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So who was the intended target?

WOUTER J BASSON: It could be that it was Mr Evans.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I don't want to know who it might have been, I want to know who it was.

WOUTER J BASSON: Mr Evans, Roland White, those are the names.

MR KAHANOVITZ: All you're giving - okay, let's take Roland White.  From that I infer that Mr White was a target.

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, there was not a project on Mr Roland White, the name was identified and Mr Botha was given the task to monitor movements and connections and it was because of this that he and Mr Barnard were caught together.  There was no order given with regard to disruptive actions as far as Mr White was concerned.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, but even on your own version those movements would be monitored as part of the initial stages of a possible plan to take further action against Mr White.

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, I cannot deny it but that was not the case, nothing came of it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see but for your version to make sense, then you must say "Yes, we monitored Roland White, yes we watched his movements.  Eventually however, we had a discussion where we came to the conclusion that nothing was going to be done to him and the reason we did that was the following."  What's your version?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes, it makes sense what you say.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So why was he let off the hook?

WOUTER J BASSON: As a result of the event where Botha and Barnard were caught together.

MR KAHANOVITZ: In other words if harm came to him your security had already been compromised and therefore there was the risk that the CCB might be exposed?

WOUTER J BASSON: It's a possibility, Chairperson.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well is that what you're saying?  I wasn't there.

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, the police arrested the two persons, if something happened to Mr White you don't require a lot of intelligence to go back to those two people to find out whether they were involved.  So it's logical that the person would have been let off the hook.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now Mr Nel says that your main concern at that time was Project "Direksie".

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, Project Direction like other projects referred to external projects.  As a result of my appointment I was involved with external projects and I don't want to talk about that in too much detail, but it is known that I don't want to answer questions about external projects as a result of reasons which were advised to me, which entails the jurisdiction of the current Truth and Reconciliation Commission, that I cannot get indemnity for deeds committed externally and that I would incriminate myself, that I would face extradition.  And if a General or a Minister from the past decides that we should talk, then I'll talk.  That's how I feel.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Chairman, maybe if you could be of some assistance here, because the problem that I have here is the following.  I don't accept that the witness is right in law, I've read findings of the Truth Commission in which the Amnesty Committees have held that they are indeed able in law to grant amnesty for people in respect of external operations.

CHAIRPERSON: That's my, with respect, personal view as well.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And it has happened.  The point is that if that's the advice that he's received, it's the wrong advice.  The next question would be, well if it is the wrong advice, does he wish to change his stance and tell us about what he was involved in outside of the country?  I don't know if he wishes to consult with his attorney.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know, just on that question about granting of amnesty in respect of matters or incidents that occurred beyond the borders, what the situation relating to extradition would be.  I mean I believe personally that amnesty could be granted, which should have an affect inside our country but ...(intervention)

MR KAHANOVITZ: I think it's fairly obvious that ...

CHAIRPERSON: ... but I don't know what affect that would have on our authorities in regard to an application for extradition.  I don't know what it would be.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Our submission at the end is going to be that the fact that you might - well let's take one example which should be clear.  Whether or not you might be subject to extradition, let's leave that aside.  Certainly if you travel and you go to Zimbabwe, you could be arrested and prosecuted and the fact that you've got amnesty here would be neither here nor there, but that doesn't assist someone like Mr Basson in putting forward the kind of argument that he's putting forward here, in the sense that our argument's going to be that he has an obligation to tell the whole truth about his activities, he can't decide because of certain negative consequences for him if he tells the whole truth, that he's not going to do so.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, yes the practical problem is whether the advice given to Mr Basson was correct or incorrect, is actually besides the point at this stage.  The fact of the matter is he got that advice, on that advice he did not request amnesty for external deeds in foreign countries.  Even if he wants to change his mind at this stage, he cannot apply for amnesty anymore.  So in any event, this Commission will not be able to grant him amnesty because it is simply for the reason he didn't apply for amnesty and therefore he would expose himself, not only to extradition to foreign countries but also prosecution within this country.  So it's actually a totally theoretical position at this stage.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Chairman, I think though there are two issues.  Yes, I agree with my learned friend, obviously he can't get amnesty.  On the other hand, the full disclosure requirement still remains, so he must make a choice as to whether he is going to fully disclose the nature of his activities while he was in the CCB.  If he chooses to refuse to answer any questions about his activities in foreign countries, well we are naturally going to be arguing at the end of these proceedings that there has been no full disclosure.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that's the risk that any applicant takes in withholding an answer.  What are you asking the Panel to do, to order him to be obliged to answer questions, or just to inform him that there is a risk of non-disclosure?

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, I just want to make sure that the applicant understands the position, you obviously can't order him to do anything.

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I say that Mr Basson as well as Mr van Zyl previously appeared in front of the Investigation arm of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Section 29?