Basson to be retried?

2003-08-25 08:31

Philip de Bruin

Johannesburg - Mr Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson has opened the constitutional court's door for a possible re-trial of Dr Wouter Basson, the former chief of the defence force's project Coast.

Following an appeal by the state for a re-trial of Basson and the Appeal Court's subsequent denial, the state turned to the constitutional court for leave to appeal.

Basson opposed this application and said that the state was creating imaginary constitutional questions in an attempt to draw the constitutional court into his case.

Chaskalson ordered that the state and Basson's legal team address the 11 constitutional judges on November 4 about a number of questions pertaining to the state's appeal.

This means, in effect, that Chaskalson hasn't given the state leave to appeal, but has ordered another hearing to clear up ambiguities about constitutional matters pertaining to Basson's case.

As was the case in Basson's hearing in the Pretoria High Court - where he was judged to be not guilty by Mr Justice Willie Hartzenberg on several serious charges - and the Appeal Court's case, a large part of the constitutional court's proceedings will revolve around whether Hartzenberg should have recused himself from the Pretoria case at the request of the state because of alleged bias towards Basson.

One of Chaskalson's pertinent questions that he would like to have answered on November 4 is "if another case was justified, if Basson's entrenched right to article 35 of the Constitutional Act would not be affected as the case already began in October 1999 and the constitution guaranteed an accused the right to a speedy court hearing, as well as that the case would be wrapped up as soon as possible".

Chaskalson also wanted answers to establish if the rulings of the Appeal Court could be heard in the Constitutional Court at all.

As far as Hartzenberg is concerned, Chaskalson wants to know if the Appeal Court's ruling that Hartzenberg's refusal to recuse himself was a factual question and not a legal question and if the constitutional court should hear argument on appeal.

- Beeld