Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-23

WOUTER J BASSON: That's correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Where were those premises?

WOUTER J BASSON: It was referred to as "Sheep for Sale".  It was very close to Special Forces Headquarters ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It was referred to as "Sheep for Sale"?

CHAIRPERSON: Sheep?

WOUTER J BASSON: Sheep.

CHAIRPERSON: Sheep?

WOUTER J BASSON: The Australian sheep.

CHAIRPERSON: So what was it, like a warehouse thing?

WOUTER J BASSON: No, it was a smallholding surrounded by a wall which had been purchased by the State or by the CCB, there was an old farm dwelling and the rooms were used as offices, mostly for administrative purposes and Mr Verster, to one side he had a little thatched office with a walk-in safe.  That was his office and most of the meetings in respect of the inside circle, as it's known to you, took place there and Mr Burger at that stage was not in the inner circle, he was on the periphery as a result of his high profile and Mr Verster went to hotels, mainly to have physical contact with Mr Burger.

CHAIRPERSON: And these premises, the "Sheep for Sale" premises, were they on a smallholding?

WOUTER J BASSON: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Whereabouts, which area?

WOUTER J BASSON: I'm not sure, I think it was Club View.  It was very close to Special Forces' Headquarters.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Do you speak of Pretoria now?

WOUTER J BASSON: Pretoria, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr du Plessis.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	Now did you have a name which you referred to this place?  Was it Speskop or ...?

WOUTER J BASSON: No, the plot, our plot was called "Sheep for Sale".

MR P DU PLESSIS: We've heard that a course was given to the newly recruited members of Region 6 at the beginning of '89, is that correct?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes.  I just want to add or say that we didn't actually sell the sheep, the neighbour sold sheep, we just called the place "Sheep for Sale" because there was this sign by the roadside saying "Sheep for Sale".

MR P DU PLESSIS: Right.  Now let us continue.  You were activated, you are the Co-ordinator.  It's also common cause that you kept a diary and it has been placed before the Committee and we've dealt with that in respect of other evidence, is that correct?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: We'll just briefly refer to that at a later stage, but just to return.  There was a course presented at which these people involved, you were involved, the people who were involved in the capacity of giving lectures, so that's been mentioned, is that correct?

WOUTER J BASSON: That's correct.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Now if I understand correctly, the purpose of the lecture or course was to give the people specific training in respect of what they were to do, what their functions would be.

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes, that was the formal presentation.

MR P DU PLESSIS: And you confirm from your side that the role which was spelt out there included that they would and be utilised indirectly for the disruption of the enemy, which included acts of violence which also could eventuate in the death of people?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: And what was discussed was also the death of people in terms of the redefined definition of murder, as we've heard, or seen in one of the documents from the Head of the South African Defence Force?

WOUTER J BASSON: That's correct.

MR P DU PLESSIS: You confirm that as far as you're concerned, it was clear to you that those deeds would constitute offences in terms of the legal system and law of the country and that you realised that fact?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes, I did realise that, but - well it was never called murder or murders, it was called disruption of the enemy as appears from the document of Gen Geldenhuys.  It was phrased in such a way that you wouldn't just easily get the impression that it would be murder, although we today know what murder is.

MR P DU PLESSIS: And you knew at that stage that it would be an offence?

WOUTER J BASSON: We did know that, but we were told that there were certain protection mechanisms in place and there were certain methods which would protect you if you acted within the guidelines and that it would easy to be looked after in terms of prosecution.

MR P DU PLESSIS: So the idea was that you would act in an indirect way with certain cut-off points and you wouldn't be exposed to such an extent that you would have no protection?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes, if a person is directly involved then I don't know if there can be any form of protection or assistance for him, but if you act indirectly, well - and if the procedures were followed and if there was a problem, if you were implicated somewhere, then the understanding was that you would be looked after.  That was the understanding and that was the suggestion that was left in our midst.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Now in terms of that suggestion, did a person like Mr van Zyl understand that indemnity was meant by that?  ...(transcriber's interpretation)

WOUTER J BASSON: Well at that stage indemnity was not even an issue, perhaps Mr van Zyl accepted it as indemnity at the stage where he started encountering problems.

MR P DU PLESSIS: In any event you confirm that protection was promised from the side of the State?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes.

MR LAX: Can I just interpose just for one second.  Did you ever see that document from General - that one that's been ...(intervention)

WOUTER J BASSON: No, I have never seen it.  There was a lot of documentation which we did not have access to, you only had access to the documents which were relevant to you.  There was a lot of documentation which dealt with, I assume initially, in the beginning stages of the establishment of the CCB, which dealt with the correspondence, meetings between the Head of the Defence Force and Special Forces and such a document would be or could be typically one of those exclusive files.

MR P DU PLESSIS: But you didn't have access to that?

WOUTER J BASSON: No, nobody had access to those.

MR LAX: So how did you come to know about this different definition of murder?

WOUTER J BASSON: I have read it in this document which was submitted to the Committee.

MR LAX: Ja.  So at the time you didn't know of that definition?

WOUTER J BASSON: No, it was mentioned to us, it was just confirmed in the document.  We weren't told "Look you will become involved in murders within the Republic of South Africa", what was said is "You will attack the enemy and disrupt them maximally, in whatever way."  If you know what I mean.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just for the record, the document referred to is Exhibit L1.

MR LAX: But what I'm driving at is, in your own mind you didn't use some other euphemism - in your own mind, if you killed somebody you knew that was murder?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes, certainly.  I don't suppose one is that uninformed, but you see it was aimed at the enemy and to me it was justified at that stage even if it was murder.  Today I understand the naivete which we displayed.

MR LAX: So in a sense you're saying that in view of your particular world view at that time, although with the benefit of hindsight you can see that it was an offence at the time, you thought these were justifiable actions to be taken against an enemy ...(intervention)

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes.

MR LAX: ... and that they weren't criminal in the normal sense of the word?

WOUTER J BASSON: That's how I saw it.

MR LAX: Ja, thanks.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Thanks Mr Lax.

MR P DU PLESSIS: But the point is, Mr van Zyl for instance testified that it could include, this maximal disruption, from the breaking of window right up to the murder of a person.  You knew that that was included?

WOUTER J BASSON: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Very well.  After the region was activated, what was the primary emphasis in the beginning stages, at the beginning of 1989?