Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-09-26

MR KAHANOVITZ: But wasn't it the rule that you were never supposed to be at those meetings?

WOUTER J BASSON: It was not a written rule, no, I was there by coincidence and I was told to become part of the presentation.

MR KAHANOVITZ: This evidence about a sudden decision having to be made, I must just put it to you that it's completely at variance with Mr van Zyl's evidence, Mr van Zyl's evidence is about a process that was evolved over a period of time where there was a "voorstudie", evidence was collected and so on and so forth, you heard his evidence, yet you're saying some decision had to be made on an urgent basis.

WOUTER J BASSON: That's correct, in my journal I do refer to - I refer to certain entries in my journal about discussions that took place over three to four days where we received the information up to the execution of the plan.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But Mr van Zyl's evidence is that this information had been collected a long time before that.

WOUTER J BASSON: Mr Chairperson, it could be that information was available, but not to the effect that it led to the physical disruption of the election, it would have been a place of meeting and this is an organisation involved, general information, but specifically what is planned now concerning the elections, took place at a later stage.

MR KAHANOVITZ: No, that's not Mr van Zyl's version.  Mr van Zyl's version, I might remind you, is that he received direct information that members of the Kewtown youth had been involved in bomb explosions and were preparing to explode further bombs on the eve of the election and he received that information long before the actual blast.

WOUTER J BASSON: Mr Chairperson, I cannot correlate this.  I went back to my diary and I looked at specific entries
"Get limpet.  Contact Chairperson."
and this was approximately over a period of three days.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see what's very strange here is that Gen Webb was told that this was what he referred to as a "geleentheidsteiken", right, an opportunity target that had arisen that wasn't known about before.  Remember that evidence?

WOUTER J BASSON: That's correct, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But we know from hearing Mr van Zyl's evidence, that that can't be so, this was no last minute bit of information that suddenly arrived on your table and you therefore had to act fast.

WOUTER J BASSON: I viewed the information as such.

MR KAHANOVITZ: How did you see it?

WOUTER J BASSON: As information that is available to us now and that people must now focus on what they want to do and that is why a counter-action had to follow.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But you authorised Mr van Zyl to do the "voorstudie" weeks before then, how can your evidence make sense?

WOUTER J BASSON: I do not agree with that statement.

MR KAHANOVITZ: What part don't you agree with?

WOUTER J BASSON: That I started weeks before the presentation and that I was already busy with it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well that's how I understood Mr van Zyl's evidence, I don't remember it being put to him that he wasn't telling the truth.

WOUTER J BASSON: Well this is what I say, Mr Chairperson.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now you at the very latest, at the time of the Harms Commission, were aware that Gen Webb's version was that he had never authorised the Evans project and the Omar project, correct?

WOUTER J BASSON: I am aware of it, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You were aware at the time of the Harms Commission?

WOUTER J BASSON: That's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Why do you say in your amnesty application that Gen Webb authorised for which you are claiming amnesty, which include Omar and Evans?

WOUTER J BASSON: Mr Chairperson, because I believed bona fide that he was aware of it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But you don't even mention in your application that there's any debate or question around this,  you just state in quite categorical terms that Gen Webb authorised these projects.  You don't qualify your answer, your statement.

WOUTER J BASSON: No, I didn't.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Why not?

WOUTER J BASSON: I see it as necessary.  I was led by a legal team that I accepted and I accepted what they told me as the correct way to follow.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Then page 45, also dealing with the Early Learning Centre, this evidence about the source who wasn't prepared to reveal his identity and for that reason no police action was possible, I take it that you agree with Mr Burger that that evidence is false?

WOUTER J BASSON: That is correct, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Just to make sure there's no uncertainty here, police action was never on the agenda, correct?

WOUTER J BASSON: That's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Then page 46, you talk about what happened on the night of the 31st of August, I just want to make a general comment about everything you say here about the Early Learning Centre.  You will agree with me that you don't mention for instance, Mr Botes' role in the bombing.  His name doesn't appear at all.

WOUTER J BASSON: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You don't state at all what your own role was.  For instance, we know from evidence that you've given elsewhere that you procured the landmine from the EMLC, correct?

WOUTER J BASSON: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: If you read your application you don't deal with your personal role at all.

WOUTER J BASSON: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Are you claiming that you made full disclosure?

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, once again I will repeat myself and say that we were dealt with as a group by a legal team who prepared the document and it was also said that during the indemnity hearings the particulars will be disclosed in detail.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I'm not talking to you about detail, I'm talking to you about really basic stuff, who planted the bomb, who got the bomb?

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, if I had to prepare my application alone I would have done so, but I did not do so, I was led by my legal counsel.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And these lawyers said you must supply as little detail as possible.

WOUTER J BASSON: No, I cannot say that, Chairperson, I don't know what the reason was.

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Kahanovitz.
	Are you saying your lawyers told you to put incorrect facts in this thing?

WOUTER J BASSON: No, I'm not saying that.

MR LAX: Then why did you put those incorrect facts in, like the police action story?  Surely you understood you had to tell the truth in this application.

WOUTER J BASSON: Correct.

MR LAX: Well then why did you lie in it?

WOUTER J BASSON: I cannot give you a specific reason, perhaps it was to create the idea to justify the deed, but I'm telling you the truth today.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright.  On that theme, are you prepared to concede that the object of this project was to kill the members of the Kewtown youth who were in the hall at the time?

WOUTER J BASSON: No, it was not part of the planning.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Chairman, in the interests of progress I'm not going to take this witness through the same sort of cross-examination about all the intricate details, I don't think it would serve much purpose at this stage, unless his representative insists that I do so.

MR P DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Chairman, my learned friend can do as he pleases, I can't advise him what to do or not to do.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Dealing with the Evans project I'm going to put it to you once again, if you read through what you have to say in paragraph 4.2, you mention Mr van Zyl's name, you don't however mention the names of Mr Maree, do you agree with me?

WOUTER J BASSON: That's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You don't mention your role and Mr Staal Burger's role in this project.

WOUTER J BASSON: It does seem like it, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Why would you tell the Committee that the "voorstudie" was done by Van Zyl?  I take it we've also agreed, I think it was stated that's not true by the way.  This is at page 48, near the bottom of the page.