Lawyers who cross-examined apartheid era chemical weapons developer Dr Wouter Basson on Tuesday tried to show that he is an untruthful witness. But throughout his cross-examination Basson resolutely repeated two simple defences — “It wasn’t me” and “I don’t remember”. He maintained that he was just “a gopher”, who followed the orders of his military commanders and the surgeon general at the time.
A professional conduct committee of the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) is conducting an inquiry into whether Basson acted unethically and unprofessionally when he headed up the apartheid government’s chemical weapons research facility in the 1980s.
Basson, who refused to partake in the Truth and Reconciliation hearings, was previously acquitted of charges related to his involvement in chemical weapons development, including murder and fraud, by the high court. This judgment was later upheld by the Constitutional Court.
On Monday Basson showed a video of mob justice and necklacings during the apartheid era and told the committee that he had provided teargas to police to “make a difference” and prevent further loss of life.
Introducing an emotional element
But during the cross examination on Tuesday, Advocate Salie Joubert said he believed that Basson had only raised the issue of assisting the police with riot control — which were not mentioned in either the charge sheet or in Basson’s plea — to introduce an “emotional element” into the trial.
“Once you realised where the shoe pinches, [you] decided to bring in emotional issues as a defence,” said Joubert.
“You brought up the issue of riot control because … you appreciated you had to bring in something emotional to convince people that you acted ethically.”
But Basson denied this saying he had acted ethically and professionally at all times.
Joubert later told the committee that Basson and his colleagues were “waging a chemical war against the population which they are trying to justify”.
But the committee objected to Joubert’s line of questioning, saying that this would widen the inquiry beyond the scope of the charge sheet. This dealt an obvious blow to the prosecution, which had to backtrack from some of the arguments it had sought to make.
Committee restricts scope of questioning
The issue concerning the scope of the inquiry and whether to allow the prosecution to make reference to evidence not already included in the charge sheet was raised by Basson’s lawyer Jaap Cilliers on Monday.
When the proceedings began this week, Cilliers argued that it would be prejudicial of the committee to allow the prosecution to make use of testimony heard during Basson’s criminal trial — which was not already appended to the charge sheet for the current inquiry — when they had not been allowed to do so.
The charge sheet contains over a hundred pages of extracts, taken from more than 6 000 pages of evidence given during Basson’s criminal trial, which both sides may make use of for the purposes of this inquiry. There are versions in both the original Afrikaans and in an English translation.
The committee said they would deal with the matter if it arose during questioning. And it did, when Joubert questioned Basson’s version of the events leading up to his readmission as a medical doctor into the civil service, after being put on early retirement by former president FW De Klerk.
Basson testified that after his early retirement form the military, he was reappointed as a cardiologist at a military hospital by Nelson Mandela, the president at the time. This, he said, came after the British and American governments wanted to appoint him as a chemical biological expert.
“The South African government didn’t like the idea that one of their citizens would be working for the governments of these countries and Mr Mandela then gave the order that I should be appointed again in a civil capacity,” said Basson.
Truths and half-truths
But Joubert disputed this version of events. “Dr Basson tells half truths and the issue of his reappointment by Mr Mandela is one of those half truths,” he said.
Joubert argued that the new government chose to keep Basson close, not because he was sought after by foreign countries, but because he had collaborated with Libya in the past and was dangerous.
The defence objected to this statement and the committee ruled that the line of questioning was not permissible because no reference was made to this incident in the evidence available.
“Once cross-examination outside the evidence is allowed, it permits the possibility that thousands of pages in the criminal trial should be considered,” said committee chairperson Jannie Hugo. This would open the door for much longer and more tedious litigation.
The inquiry now being conducted has been pending since late 2000. It began formally in 2007.
Language and grammar
At one point an argument broke out when the prosecution directed Basson to refer to a section of the evidence and Basson argued that he did not agree with the translation.
Joubert called Basson an “obstructive witness” but in the end, the members of the inquiry agreed to work using the original Afrikaans testimony.
Joubert tried to use comments Basson had made in his criminal trial as proof that he considered teargas to be “extremely toxic”. But an argument over grammar and context ensued and Cilliers later countered “If teargas is so toxic, then one has to ask why it is being used so widely in the protests over the last three days.”
The prosecution aims to conclude Basson’s cross examination by Wednesday afternoon. Further witnesses will be called thereafter.