Gauteng High Court denies Wouter Basson leave to appeal disciplinary hearing to proceed

The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has refused Dr Wouter Basson leave to appeal, meaning he must face a disciplinary hearing before the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) over four charges the court described as serious.

Court ruling and next steps

The court earlier this year turned down Basson’s application for a permanent stay of the HPCSA proceedings and subsequently also refused his application for leave to appeal. The court found the four charges against him were sufficiently serious that an appeal would not succeed and that the disciplinary hearing should proceed.

Background of the HPCSA proceedings

Basson was found guilty of unprofessional conduct in December 2013 following a disciplinary hearing that examined complaints linked to his actions in the early 1980s when he led Project Coast, the apartheid-era chemical and biological warfare initiative. Sentencing proceedings began in January 2015 but were halted for reasons that included legal proceedings seeking the recusal of committee members; the proceedings have not been concluded.

Allegations and earlier criminal matters

Complaints against Basson were filed with the HPCSA during 2000 and 2001 and related to his alleged conduct while serving in the South African Defence Force. Basson served in the SADF from 1980 to 1995. In the early 2000s he faced 67 charges but was acquitted on all counts in 2005.

Detailed charges the court highlighted

The court set out that the four charges include allegations that, around 1986 to 1988 and 1992, while serving as Project Officer at Delta G, Basson coordinated the large-scale production of various drugs and tear gases, including Methaqualone (Mandrax). The court noted the usual and excessive effects of those substances and observed they could cause death through respiratory arrest in overdose.

At his criminal trial, Basson said such substances and gases were developed for crowd control, telling the court:

“You want to break the cohesion of the crowd.”

He also said protesters who inhaled the gases “just want to go home to lie down and die“. His legal team argued the intention was not to harm or kill.

Expert evidence and court response

The HPCSA presented extracts of Basson’s criminal trial testimony and the affidavit of Prof Steven Miles, who is to serve as its expert witness in the disciplinary proceedings. Miles summarised that Basson had manufactured large quantities of potentially lethal toxins and that, as a practising doctor, Basson violated medical ethics by producing drugs and teargas and supplying substances to tranquillise victims.

Basson objected to the court having considered Miles’ views during the stay application, saying the facts were not contained in an affidavit. The court rejected that objection and said the allegations remained serious. The court also dismissed Basson’s argument that he would be prejudiced if the hearing proceeded after many years.

What remains

The Gauteng High Court’s rulings mean the HPCSA disciplinary hearing will go ahead on the four charges described by the court. The court’s decisions to refuse both the stay and leave to appeal brought Basson one step closer to facing the disciplinary process the HPCSA has pursued since complaints were lodged.