Special Hearings — Chemical And Biological Warfare Hearings — 1998-07-29

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Dr Basson.
R U L I N G
 This is an application for a postponement made on behalf of Dr Wouter Basson to a date convenient to the Commission.  The bases that have been given to us vary, but the essence thereof is that it is to afford Dr Wouter Basson an opportunity, which flows from our Act, to be legally represented.  
 These proceedings are themselves a continuation of proceedings which, with regard to Dr Wouter Basson, commenced on or about the 10th of June 1998 when he was sworn in but before he could evidence various applications were made on his behalf by his legal counsel.  
 One of the intervening circumstances before we could take evidence was an application to the Cape High Court, which was initiated by himself, and a counter-application which was brought in by the Commission, the outcome of which the court order was issued with various reliefs to the Commission, the essence of which was to dismiss his application and to order him to appear before us today to answer all questions lawfully put to him.
 We are, therefore, in the continuation of those proceedings which, as I have said, commenced on the day when we were to take evidence from Dr Wouter Basson in June 1998.
 A very passionate plea, both by himself and by his legal counsel, or legal representative today, has been made on the basis that, if for no other reason but for the reason that our Act entitles him to legal representation it would be unfair if he were not to be represented, preferably by legal counsel of his choice, but certainly by competent legal representatives who would be able to represent his best interests on the merits.
 Mr van Niekerk has indicated that he himself is neither competent, by reason of the fact that he has not taken any full instructions, nor able and ready to represent Dr Wouter Basson on the merits, clearly by reason of the fact that in terms of the legal ethics that govern the conduct of attorneys, it would be unimaginable that he should even pretend to be representing somebody from whom he has not been able to take instructions.
 This panel takes the points, they are very sympathetic.  Against their own will they indicated that it may well be that in the interests of fairness, and in the interests of justice Dr Wouter Basson should be granted a postponement.  
 It is in accordance with the exercise of his legal and Constitutional rights that on a plea for a postponement on the grounds advanced this panel should be inclined and keen to grant him a postponement.
 I had occasion during the course of the proceedings to remark that no rights are absolute, and I think the panel has to weigh sometimes, as most tribunals have had to do, and as most courts have had to do, competing rights. The Constitution has or the Act has in the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act has a duty to do certain things, one of which is to carry out the mandate of the Commission.  The particular Committee vested with the duty to take evidence on perpetration of gross violations of human rights and matters incidental thereto is the Human Rights Violations Committee.  Its mandate ends on Friday.  
 There are certain obligations on it and whilst we appreciate the inference to be drawn from Dr Wouter Basson's interventions, namely that we have been dealing with him since August 1997 or 1996 for that matter, and therefore we had plenty of opportunity to have engaged with him, the fact of the matter is that on the 29th of July 1998 we have not so engaged with him and we have only the following two days to do so.
 We would therefore urge with every sympathy that we have shown, but with everything at our command, that he should utilise the remaining part of today and endeavour to get either legal representation or the legal representatives of his own choice as he has indicated, or such legal representatives as will be able to come and represent him on the merits tomorrow at 9 o'clock, which is the date on which we have agreed the matter must be postponed to.
 May I just add in parenthesis that these proceedings are not proceedings in a court of law, this is a tribunal, it is one that has been set up in terms of Section 29 on the basis of which we subpoenaed Dr Wouter Basson.  I will have more to say about the validity of that subpoena when later on during the course of these proceedings I deal with the question of whether or not Dr Wouter Basson was contemptuous of this court when he arrived as he did at a quarter past nine.  These are matters that we still will reserve until we are in a position to do so at the tail end of these proceedings.  
 I might just remark that in connection with the postponement, it is to tomorrow at 9 o'clock in this room or such time at 9 o'clock.  I have to emphasise that we will reluctantly have to proceed tomorrow whether or not Dr Wouter Basson is legally represented.   We will now adjourn until 9 o'clock tomorrow.
HEARING ADJOURNS