Trial Report: Fifty-Six

This report covers the period Monday 24 - Friday 28 September 2001

Appeal for donations. The Centre for Conflict Resolution (CCR) does not have sufficient funds to continue monitoring the Basson trial and producing these reports until the likely conclusion of the trial in March 2002. We appeal to readers of these reports to make small financial contributions. Please contact the CCR General Manager, Fiona Grant, at [email protected]. We acknowledge with gratitude the financial contributions made by Dr Alastair Hay of the Leeds University's School of Medicine, the Science Policy Research Unit of the University of Sussex and Amnesty International which has made the continued monitoring of the Basson trial possible.

Monday 24 September was a public holiday in South Africa so proceedings resumed on Tuesday 25 September.

Tuesday 25 September

Prosecutor, Anton Ackermann began by putting it to Basson that the only control exercised over foreign payments made on behalf of Project Coast by Military Intelligence, was verification that they fell within the project budget and that the necessary Reserve Bank authorisation had been obtained. No physical verification of the receipt of goods was ever carried out and auditor Petro Theron relied heavily on the documentation provided by Military Intelligence for audit purposes. Basson strongly denied that this was the case, and claimed that due diligence was exercised at all times.

Basson confirmed that several front companies were used to make payments. Ackermann put it to Basson that the chemical warfare facility, Delta G Scientific, bought whatever sensitive equipment it needed from foreign suppliers. Basson said that the only sensitive equipment Delta G ever bought, was certain reactors, and the chemicals which were acquired through the procurement front company, Organochem, for CR production.

Basson said that the Surgeon-general, Niel Knobel, and other members of the Co-ordinating Management Committee, were not apprised of the detail of every single payment made from the Coast budget. He said that the project’s needs were identified at the start of each financial year, and authorisation for expenditure was granted on an ad hoc basis. Basson said that full meetings of the Co-ordinating Management Committee took place four or five times a year, while informal meetings, of three or four members, were held at least once a month, sometimes as many as three times, and it was at these smaller meetings that acquisitions were discussed.

Basson said that Gen Knobel was not informed about every trip he undertook. He explained that Project Coast had an annual travel budget of R600 000, and Basson would supply details of his travels after the fact, and only if he had encountered problems. He said that the purchase of laboratory equipment would be known to Gen Knobel, at least in the form of an initial proposal, but if Basson spent R5 000 while abroad on acquiring information, for example, he would only report this at the end of the financial year, not as it happened. He said he had the authority to spent up to R15 000, and payments made in the case of operational emergencies could exceed this amount.

Basson answered questions relating to the specific acquisition of equipment which he claimed was intended for the laboratory at the Special Forces Headquarters. The State is disputing that some of the equipment Basson claims was purchased from Roger Buffham was indeed bought.

Basson said he had "no memory" of any documents having been in his possession which related to the true nature of his dealings with Bernard Zimmer, David Chu, David Webster or Roger Buffham on behalf of the Principals. He said that these people would have kept records which they have obviously destroyed, leaving only the false documents and those specially created as cover stories, for investigators to find. He said it was not his job to keep a central record of his dealings with, or on behalf of the Principals, and that if he had any documents pertaining to their relationship, he might have shredded them.

Ackermann stated that no documents mentioning Abdul Razak, Dieter Dreier or Simon Puerra, or any that would support Basson’s version of his relationship with these people, was found in the blue steel trunks found at the time of his arrest in 1997. Basson said that he had no mandate from the Chief of the South African Defence Force to inform the Chief of Staff Intelligence about the covert operations.

Asked to comment on certain claims made in a document authored by the Director of Military Counter Intelligence about Project Jota, Basson said that Project Jota was not, as has generally been assumed, simply a new name allocated to Project Coast. He claimed that from 1992, Jota was the name of the defensive component of the CBW project, while Coast continued to be the name of the offensive arm. He said that Col Ben Steyn was fully informed about Jota, but was told nothing about Coast when he took over as Project Officer from Basson.

Basson said that Jota’s task was limited to the manufacture of NBC suits and other protective/defensive equipment manufactured in South Africa. He said that Steyn had "no idea" what Coast entailed, particularly in regard to the offensive weaponisation of chemical substances which was why Steyn was not involved in the destruction of the drugs in January 1993.

Ackermann pointed out that this was the first time, during the trial or in any other forum, that a clear distinction has been drawn between projects Coast and Jota.

Ackermann said that the documents retrieved from David Webster had not made any mention of Dieter Dreier or any of the Principals. Ackermann confirmed that Dreier was the same person Chu had testified to knowing, a car rental agent in Basel. Basson said he knew Dreier as an intelligence agent and financial wheeler-dealer.

Basson said that at some time in 1991, he sent R60 000 in cash to the Libyan ambassador in Windhoek. He said the funds were required urgently by the Principals, and he gave the money to a member of the South African Police Task Force who was on an South African Airways flight as an undercover anti-hijacking guard, with instructions to hand it to the ambassador. Every SAA flight at the time carried an anti-hijacking guard, Basson claimed.

Wednesday 26 September

After nine weeks on the witness stand, eight of them under cross-examination, Basson stepped down, and the defence has closed its case, without calling any witnesses to support Basson's version of events. Anton Ackermann used the final hours to tie up loose ends and place on record a number of matters arising from documents in possession of the State. These documents related to the proposed purchase of an American football team, a business proposal to publish a children's bible in the US and other matters. Basson testified that many of these business ideas never came to fruition.

Ackermann put it to Basson that it was highly unlikely, given Russia’s support of the Serbs in the Balkan war, that anyone from the Academy of Sciences would have referred him to Croatians as potential suppliers of methaqualone. Basson simply replied that, they did.

The re-examination of Basson by defence advocate Jaap Cilliers was brief and related to issues raised by Ackermann on Tuesday and Wednesday. It was placed on the record that even after Basson was dismissed from the Defence Force in 1992 he was paid in cash by the Defence Force. Cilliers informed the court that the defence closed its case. The Judge had no further questions for the witness.

Court will reconvene on Monday, October 8, when the programme for legal argument will be determined. Judge Hartzenberg initially indicated that the advocates could see him in chambers for this purpose, but Ackermann insisted that court convene, as he might bring an application for the recall of certain witnesses, or leave to call new witnesses, one of whom may be General Peter Regli. The judge observed that although he had hoped the trial would be concluded by the end of the year 2001, it was now clear that this would not be the case. The year-end recess starts on Friday December 7 and, Judge Hartzenberg said, he had no intention of sitting during the recess. The final phase of the trial will thus only take place in the first few months of the year 2002.

This report has been prepared by Chandré Gould and Marlene Burger. Chandré  Gould is a research associate at the Centre for Conflict Resolution working on the Chemical and Biological Warfare Research Project. Marlene Burger is monitoring the trial  as part of the CCR Chemical and Biological Warfare Research Project. The Chemical and Biological Warfare Research Project is funded by the Ford Foundation, the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung and the Norwegian Government.

Centre for Conflict Resolution, UCT, Private Bag, Rondebosch, 7701, South Africa Tel: (27) 21-4222512 Fax: (27) 21-4222622 Email: [email protected]