Special Hearings — Chemical And Biological Warfare Hearings — 1998-06-18

DANIEL PETER KNOBEL: Mr Chairman I was trying to answer that question by saying to you that I had regularly confronted Basson in the past. I confronted him once again. I did not give him the information that Jan Lourens had given me. I confronted him and said: "Are you certain that there is anything that you are doing inside this project which is illegal or criminal in nature?" And I testified to that effect this morning that he constantly indicated that he was certain that he was being confused with somebody else. With the wisdom of hindsight we may say that I should have acted immediately more strongly at that point. I realise that but the fact of the matter is exactly as I explained it to you this morning.

CHAIRPERSON: You see General the inference becomes irresistible that even at that stage you realised that this is something bad. This is something I ought not to sanction. And the inference is irresistible that you then reconcile yourself with that situation and said to yourself look I don't want to know. I don't want to know in fact I regret that I have known even as far as I have by allowing Lourens to talk to me in these circumstances. And I think the question I want to put to you is; don't you in fact think it was a dereliction of duty on your part given your position? Let me ask the question; did you investigate? Did you set an enquiry in motion that was going to establish the correctness or otherwise of what Lourens was saying so that if needs be as Surgeon-General you should take or initiate disciplinary proceedings against the people concerned? Don't tell me about the Attorney General. That is another arm, it deals with issues of State crime. There are I am sure procedures within your department where if people go beyond their mandate they are disciplined.
 Did you on the basis of what Lourens had told you initiate an investigation that might have lead to disciplinary action and if not, why?

DANIEL PETER KNOBEL: Well the answer to the question is no I did not. And the reason why is because I was under the impression at the time and the fact that I had made it possible for Basson to be seen by National Intelligence personally and they could question him on their own would reveal whether this was true or not. And that is why I asked this morning that National Intelligence should also be asked to testify in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you, okay having done that we are in February now having been alarmed to the extent that you were by the NIS report did you initiate any disciplinary proceedings against Dr Basson, Dr Lourens or whoever was involved in that nefarious (...indistinct)?

DANIEL PETER KNOBEL: No I did not Mr Chairman and there was also a good reason for that.

CHAIRPERSON: Let us hear the reason for that?

DANIEL PETER KNOBEL: At that point I testified this morning, at that point the main issue was to deal with the demarche in South Africa's international position. This situation of Basson that was then being addressed by not only myself by National Intelligence, by the Chief of the Defence Force, by the Minister, by the President and very soon after by the new Minister, by the new President became an extremely difficult thing to handle. Even to the extent should he be re-employed to get him under control.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what was the nature of dealing with this matter? What was the end result? Was it being dealt with for purposes of keeping it under wraps because of the sort of signals that were coming out it is such a thing that - couldn't you have instituted an in camera disciplinary enquiry that would have dealt with this matter in a manner that shouldn't really now put you on your defence at this stage? Because we are sitting in times now when we can all see and say now look what sort of responsibility did this man carry on his shoulders? Now maybe if we understand the nature of the enquiry. When you say NIS and everybody else were dealing with this matter what was the end purpose? What was the purpose? Was it to contain it so that it does not get out there and jeopardise national security interests? Or what was the aim, was it to cover it up?

DANIEL PETER KNOBEL: No it was certainly not to cover it up because it was known to everybody who was then concerned Mr Chairman. But I will try and explain it to you in this way. Basson was a key figure in the process of discussing with the American and the British experts the details of our programme. Quite frankly the briefing I gave to the Americans and the British was the type of briefing that I had been given for how many times to all the new ministers, etc, etc. It was the briefing about the management and about the general direction and the guidelines that were given and how the process were mandated and that sort of thing. But in terms of the scientific work on the ground the only person who had that knowledge and insight and could be able to discuss it with the American experts and the British experts that had come with their teams was Basson personally.

CHAIRPERSON: Now let me ask a blunt question. Was there a fear perhaps that if the approach was one like for instance disciplinary action and stuff like that, that it would do more harm than good? That the man might flee the country and then expose the country to more danger than actually trying to contain it?

DANIEL PETER KNOBEL: Yes I think you have summed it up very well Mr Chairman that was very proudly what we had in the back of our minds.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally.

DR RANDERA: Sorry General can I just get that clear because if I remember rightly what had come out of the Steyn Report that is December 1992 Brigadier Basson is one of the people actual singled out within that report for dismissal.

DANIEL PETER KNOBEL: Yes.

DR RANDERA: So in a sense the President had actually made a decision given all your concerns about proliferation and him going off to America or Iraq or Libya or wherever he would want to go to but a decision had already been made to dismiss him. Irrespective of the fact that he had actual headed the chemical and biological warfare programme. Irrespective of the fact that he was actually heading 7th Medical Battalion, that he was a cardiologist. All these concerns had been taken into consideration but he is brought in into the citizens force. You see I also have this concern. Here you are as the head of the medical side of the army and I remember very clearly your coming to the medical, the health hearings and I am sure you are very proud of what you have accomplished in the period that we are looking at. But you are told that the head of your, the person who is heading your 7th Medical Battalion, the person who is heading chemical and biological warfare may be involved in activities. In covert activities and yet you don't take any action. And I think that is what we are trying to understand here as to what was your actual frame of mind at the time. Because we are not dealing in the abstract here. We are dealing in a situation where out there in the media there are a number of reports coming out on third force activity. The President actually appoints one of the people from the military himself at the time. You get a report back. Seven months and not even seven months - ten months later because it is October 1993 that you say that Mr Lourens came to you. Ten months after General Steyn had said this person should be dismissed from the army and yet no action is taken besides a cursory discussion with General Liebenberg. Not even in an official capacity as you yourself said. And also the Intelligence Services had, had discussions with you. Did you share this information? Never mind the Attorney General. Did you share this information with the Intelligence Service?

DANIEL PETER KNOBEL: Yes I did later. At that time (...intervention)

DR RANDERA: At the time?