Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-09-26

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, we went to three different legal teams until this day and every team has advised us to keep quiet about foreign operations.

MR KAHANOVITZ: No forget about the Harms Commission, the Harms Commission was long before the amnesty process, you agree with me?  At the time of the Harms Commission nobody knew about amnesty.

WOUTER J BASSON: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Right.  So then the idea of amnesty comes to the fore, you went to see lawyers, is that your evidence?  You personally went to see lawyers.

WOUTER J BASSON: I myself and those who were involved.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Forget about the others, I want to know, did you go and see a lawyer?

WOUTER J BASSON: He said he did, he said he and others went.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And you had a meeting with those lawyers and those lawyers advised you not to apply for amnesty, is that your version?

WOUTER J BASSON: For foreign actions, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright.  Your lawyer appears to want to show you something, I'm not sure what it is.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I'm just referring him to his first application during 1991, perhaps to refresh his memory, it's signed on the on the 28th of March 1991 and the same annexure had been used in his subsequent application.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now was there advice that you can't get amnesty for external operations?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes, I think it was words to that effect.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Just listen to me carefully, was there advice that they don't think that you should apply or was there advice that you can't get amnesty?

WOUTER J BASSON: The competency or the capacities of the Commission were clearly spelt out to us and it appeared as if the Commission would not have the jurisdiction or the capacity to grant indemnity for cross-border operations.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Were you getting at this stage about the Truth Commission or about the process that preceded the Truth Commission?  Because as your attorney has already pointed out, there were two phases.

WOUTER J BASSON: I cannot recall when it was, it must have been since the beginning.

MR LAX: Just to correct, it wasn't two phases, it was two totally different processes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Do you recall the one was what was called the indemnity process and the other was an amnesty process?

WOUTER J BASSON: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Do you recall getting advice about the amnesty process?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes, that is what I've just stated.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well I'm not sure, because what we know is you drew up a document which you prepared for the indemnity process, correct, but when it came to the amnesty process you just annexed that same document.

WOUTER J BASSON: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You will also note that nowhere in that document does it say words to the effect of 'I was involved in various external activities, I however have received advice to the effect that I cannot apply for amnesty in respect of these incident and it's for this reason that I do not set out the facts relevant.'

WOUTER J BASSON: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Don't you think that if you had indeed - you see, I would have expected if you'd gone to see a lawyer and the lawyer had said to you, "Gentlemen, I hear what you're telling me about external projects, I want to tell you two things, you can't get amnesty for those but I don't want you to get into trouble when you apply for amnesty, people saying that you haven't disclosed relevant information.  So what we're going to say is that you were involved in a lot of external projects but we're going to say in the application that you are not disclosing the facts relevant to those for the following reasons."  Does that sound reasonable to you?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes, it does.  I think that I should have come to you for my application.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Basson, in 1991 there was no Commission, Amnesty Committee or the TRC Commission, therefore the capacity of the Commission or its competency to give amnesty for external activities would not be in question, do you agree?

WOUTER J BASSON: Chairperson, I'm not really up to date regarding the preceding indemnity process. I cannot really answer your question because I'm not that familiar with it.   I can see the Act here, but I'm not familiar with the content of the Act.  And I do not want to say that it was Defence Force policy in this regard that cross-border operations are not to be discussed, but it is also a possibility that it may have been followed through as such onto ground level.

MR SIBANYONI: That's if you signed your affidavit in 1991 and you didn't intend to talk about internal activities, it should be for another reason, not for the reason of the Commission not being in a position to grant you amnesty for that.

WOUTER J BASSON: That is correct, yes.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I just want to clarify the advice that you received, so that we're not confused.  Was the advice "You can get amnesty, but that's not going to stop any foreign from prosecuting you, or was the advice 'You can't get amnesty'?

WOUTER J BASSON: Mr Chairperson, I think it was the first statement that you made, that the biggest problem is about possible deliverance and that is why it was decided not to discuss it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: 'Cause I was about to put to you I would very much doubt that any lawyer having read the Act, could have told you that you can't get amnesty in South Africa for external operations.  Do I correctly assume that what really happened was that you had a discussion as to the practical consequences for you guys if you got amnesty in South Africa for foreign operations, that would all be very nice, but what would happen for instance, when you travel?  Did you have a discussion along those lines?

WOUTER J BASSON: Not necessarily, no.  Let us look at an example, if I talk about foreign activities then I will for argument's sake, because I'm scared of convictions in that country, I will never go to that country, I'll never attempt to go there because of what is known about me here.  What could also happen is that one is in a country that you think is safe and then in the next moment this country changes its alliance, then it is possible.  In other words, if this current Commission gives us amnesty, it doesn't mean anything really.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, so assuming your argument to be correct you decided for strategic reasons that you didn't want to, it wouldn't serve you a practical purpose to apply for amnesty for extraterritorial acts, because you would not be safe travelling.

WOUTER J BASSON: Mr Chairperson, it's not just about safe travelling, it is about my future in preventing people charging me with certain acts, in that there are so many members of the Defence Force who were involved and to now suddenly stand here as an individual and to implicate various others, it was not the right thing for me to do even though I did receive legal advice.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright.  So if one person opens their mouth, who knows where it's all going to stop?

WOUTER J BASSON: Well I did put it to you before that if the top General of that time started talking and then he said "Let's all talk, we would".  Or either one person does it or all of us do it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright.  But a decision was made that 'Well everybody's going to keep their mouth shut'?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes, we decided it together.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now just your comment on the finding of the Harms Commission concerning the project to assassinate the attorney by the name of Mhlaba, M-h-l-a-b-a.  The bottom line was that there was a project in Natal to poison him on the 13th of March 1989, do you have any knowledge of that?

WOUTER J BASSON: No, I deny any involvement in such a project.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Assuming that there was indeed such a CCB project, should it not have fallen under Region 6 if the assassination was to take place in Natal?