Trial Report: Fifty-Seven

This report covers the period Monday 8 October and Tuesday 9 October, 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.

Judge Willie Hartzenberg turned down an application by the State for the court to subpoena three foreign witnesses to testify before legal argument begins.

Senior prosecutor Anton Ackermann brought a surprise application on Monday for the court to call former Swiss Military Intelligence chief General Peter Regli and two of Basson’s alleged "financial principals", Dieter Dreier and Yusuf Murgham.

It had not been possible for the State itself to call these witnesses, Ackermann said, as until Basson himself took the stand. There had been no more than oblique references to the roles allegedly played by Murgham and Dreier, and the State had thus not been able to locate down. Furthermore, the State had been under the impression that Murgham, at least, would be called as a defence witness, given references by advocate Jaap Cilliers to the fact that he had consulted with the alleged senior Libyan intelligence agent before and since the start of the trial in October 1999.

Regarding Peter Regli's, Ackermann said that despite Regli, having apparently been willing to travel to South Africa and testify all along, this information was withheld from the prosecution by the Swiss authorities who were conducting their own investigation into Regli’s alleged dealings with Basson and South Africa’s chemical and biological warfare programme. Ackermann said that in recent weeks Regli had contacted him and indicated that he was available as a State witness. He had sent Ackermann a fax on Tuesday, October 2, confirming this.

The State had not known where to look for Dreier, but he had now been tracked down by two Swiss journalists, and had indicated in an interview, of which Ackermann has a transcript, that he was willing to testify against Basson.

Ackermann said despite the value of the testimony these three witnesses could provide, it was not essential that they be called in order to prove the State case against Basson beyond reasonable doubt. The large volume of documents filed with the court had already served this purpose. But, he said if the court had the slightest doubt about the evidence presented, it had a clear responsibility to call the witnesses in order to obtain clarity on the issues.

Defence advocate Jaap Cilliers vigorously opposed the application, claiming that if these witnesses were called, Basson’s right to a speedy trial would be severely violated. The trial was already in its 25th month, and if the court called the three witnesses, both the State and the defence would be obliged to reopen their cases and possibly call further witnesses on matters arising from the testimony of Regli, Dreier and Murgham. This could drag the trial out by another six months, said Cilliers, and he could not see how the three potential witnesses could take the case any further, since, given the role they had played, none of them would tell the truth or admit to any of the dealings ascribed to them by the accused.

The judge himself appeared reluctant to entertain Ackermann’s application, questioning the "interference" of one witness, Sol Pienaar, who the Judge said was patently anti-Basson, in locating Murgham and assisting the State in securing his agreement to testify.

As for Regli, Hartzenberg said he was fully aware that the investigation into his activities had been reopened by Swiss authorities, and he was clearly only keen to testify against Basson in order to clear his own name. General Niel Knobel had, after all, testified that when he spoke with Regli, the accused’s version of events (in regard to the Croatian deal) had been confirmed.

On Tuesday morning, the judge formally dismissed the State application. He did not consider the three suggested witnesses to be essential, and expressed doubt that they would admit to having participated in sanctions-busting or sharing classified information with South Africa. Their evidence, he said, would carry little weight, and by calling them, the trial would be delayed even further.

The Judge said it was clear that Basson had been ordered by his superiors in the South African Defence Force to engage in sanctions-busting while head of Project Coast, and that he had a mandate to build up an international network of collaborators. Businessman Charles van Remoortere had testified unequivocally that sanctions-busting was involved.

Swiss pharmacologist David Chu, Belgian businessman Bernard Zimmer and American attorney David Webster, as well as his wife, Jane, had all denied knowing that they were involved in circumventing sanctions, or assisting the SADF, but since all of them could face prosecution in their home countries if they did anything but deny such activities, "it would be na�ve in the extreme to accept their evidence on this point as credible", said Hartzenberg. He said there was no reason to assume that any of the three witnesses proposed by the State at this late stage of proceedings would testify any differently. They would not divulge their roles in sanctions-busting or assistance to the South African chemical and biological warfare programme, and their testimony would thus not help to clarify anything.

Final argument on the drug charges will be presented by Dr Torie Pretorius from Monday, November 5. Further discussion on the probable timetable took place in the judge’s chambers, and it is not yet clear if the defence will respond to the arguments piecemeal, as happened during the arguments for acquittal earlier this year, or wait until all the State arguments are in before replying.

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]