Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-09-26

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, but you had awesome powers and your powers were, you receive the information and you decide on the basis of that information we are now going to kill Dullah Omar.

WOUTER J BASSON: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You agree with me before doing that you were under a duty to make sure that the information or intelligence that you'd received was both accurate and reliable?

WOUTER J BASSON: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Do you agree?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now working from the premise we now have this accurate and reliable information, I want to properly understand what criteria had to be present in order for a plan for that person's elimination to be approved.  What I've heard from the evidence so far, and you must tell me whether I'm understanding this correctly or not, in order for a plan for someone's elimination to be approved it wasn't good enough that that person must merely be against apartheid.  Is that correct?

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, it would depend upon his profile or the activities that he was involved with, whether his attitude was for or against apartheid.  If he was viewed as a threat to the sovereignty of the State, ...(intervention)

MR KAHANOVITZ: Can I just tell you what, maybe try and short-circuit this, because some of the other witnesses have said the following.  Being against apartheid wasn't good enough, or being against the National Party wasn't good enough, or just being left-wing wasn't good enough, or just being an ANC sympathiser or supporter wasn't good enough, there had to be something more.  You'll recall the evidence, there was cross-examination to the effect of, say in the case of Mr Verster, you'll agree that whatever, 60% or 70% of the population supported the ANC.  You weren't going to murder all of them.  And you'll remember his answer was "That is so."  Do you recall this evidence?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright.  The evidence as I understood it was that in order to be targeted for elimination the person had to be personally involved in military activities, right, or what you might have called terrorism, or they would have to be the kind of person who was giving physical support to terrorists, in other words driving them around, transporting weapons, hiding weapons and so on.  Is my understanding correct, that unless you fell into that category, you couldn't be targeted for elimination?

WOUTER J BASSON: I don't know if that was the only criterion, Chairperson, but what you have said there is definitely a criterion.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright.  If that's not the only criteria, can you explain to us your understanding as a member of the inner circle taking the case of someone who is not personally involved in military activities or giving physical support to such people, in what other circumstances might approval be given to elimination?

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, it isn't always necessary for me to examine specific criteria to which a person must fulfil, I have an instruction and I have a list of names, I would send it through, persons would obtain information, the information would be presented.  I would not decide whether these criteria would comply with the requirements, I would be told yes or not, continue or you're on the wrong track. I would accept that if the presentation is done and approval is given, that the person would comply with the criteria, so that he would be viewed as an enemy of the State at that stage.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But Mr Basson, we've all agreed in these hearing that just to be an enemy of the State didn't qualify you for assassination.  You agree with me?

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, I am simply putting a general statement for when a person is an enemy of the State.  What I mean is, the full criteria or the full disruption process or the full subversion which took place with regard to that broad framework.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But Mr Basson, to do your work properly you'd have to have some understanding, somebody would have to have given you guidelines to say "Look here, these kind of people you can break their windows, these kind of people we might burn their cars, these kind of people", Joe Verster in those cases as a matter of principle would be prepared to authorise their elimination.  Now it's the third category that I'm trying to understand.  What are the circumstances under which Joe Verster might be willing to approve the elimination of a person.  What did that person have to do?

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, I am responding to instructions, a study would be done and it would be presented to Mr Verster ...(intervention)

MR KAHANOVITZ: Sorry, can I just cut you short, I don't want to hear again about the "voorstudie", I don't want to hear evidence to the effect that "I left it up to somebody else to decide", I want to know from you as someone in the inner core, in what circumstances might Joe Verster have been willing to authorise the elimination of a person.  What ...(intervention)

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, I cannot answer on behalf of Mr Verster.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Okay, forget about Mr Verster, in what circumstances might the CCB have been prepared to eliminate someone?

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, it is not up to me to decide and I cannot speak on behalf of the entire CCB.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You know Mr Basson, I've read now over 2 000 pages of evidence, we've been sitting here for weeks, this question is central to these proceedings and I want you to think very carefully about giving us an answer that we can all understand.  We've heard lots of evidence about what was said on the training course and we've heard lots of evidence to the effect of 'don't ask me, ask the guy who was below me or ask the guy who was above me.'  I just want to understand the principle, I don't understand why you might be prepared to burn Mr Rosskamp's car but you want to murder Gavin Evans.  I want to understand what it is that Mr Evans was involved in as a general principle someone like Mr Evans or someone like Adv Omar, that qualified them in terms of your own internal criteria for elimination and what it was that disqualified someone like Anton Rosskamp for elimination.

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, directly or indirectly the person's involvement with the ANC which was a forbidden organisation at that stage.  There was available information, for some more than others, that is why there were persons who enjoyed a higher priority than others.  The decision to eliminate or to burn out a car did not reside with me.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And you can't help us in the least to explain why one person's car might be burnt and another person might be killed?

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, it was based upon information, what was genuinely available, what did we really know about the person.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I'm asking this question on the basis, you now know everything you need to know about this person, right, assume that for the sake of this question, you have all the information in the world, what must be in that report, what must that report tell you about that person to say "I'm going to kill this person, I'm not going to burn his car"?

WOUTER J BASSON: It shouldn't only be hearsay, it should be confirmed information which had been verified ...(intervention)

MR KAHANOVITZ: Assume for the sake of the question that it's all verified, it's a hundred percent accurate, it's a hundred percent true, no, you have got no concerns, tell me now what it is that's going to, what information would you then look for that says 'this guy, we must take him out'?