Why was Wouter Basson never charged with crimes against humanity for Project Coast?
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Coast" rel="noreferrer">Project Coast</a> was a biological weapons program that the South African government developed in the 1970's and 1980's. The leading scientist and administrator of Project Coast was a cardiologist called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wouter_Basson#Trial" rel="noreferrer">Wouter Basson</a> This was a massive, ambitious weapons program that created both lethal and non-lethal weapons for strategic purposes, such as making black people sterile, and for tactical purposes such as assassinating political opponents. </p>

<p>Throughout Project Coast Wouter Basson was, allegedly, responsible for numerous murders by supplying biological weapons; in Operation Duel [1982] Basson allegedly supplied lethal pills that killed 200 members of The South West Africa People's Organization. </p>

<p>Why wasn't Wouter Basson charged with crimes against humanity? From my research he is still free, is alive, and has never been found guilty of anything. The United Nations or The Hague have never attempted to charge Basson with crimes against humanity. Why? </p>

<p>I think you are misunderstanding the nature of international criminal courts or tribunals. </p>

<p>They were established mostly when the international community believes that the national court systems in a conflict region have become unable or unwilling to provide justice. This <em>perceived</em> breakdown is not usually tied to any one case, it depends on a pattern of denied justice. More recent attempts to establish a genuine international jurisdiction like the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court" rel="noreferrer">ICCt</a> suffer from limited participation.</p>

<p>International observers concluded that post-Apartheid South Africa has done a halfway decent job at covering Apartheid-era crimes, considering the difficult circumstances at the time. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_(South_Africa)" rel="noreferrer">Truth and Reconciliation Commission</a> was part of the solution. So there is no need to overrule the South African decision if they want to prosecute the case (or not, as it may be).</p>

<p>All legal deliberations, civil or criminal, depends on the facts of a case. But I do not know the facts asserted by OP, such as who is Basson, Project Coast and their activities.</p>
<p>I will rely on what is provided in the question and answer OP's main question: &quot;<strong>Why wasn't Wouter Basson charged with crimes against humanity?</strong>&quot;</p>
<hr />
<p><strong>What is a Crime?</strong></p>
<p>A long-established legal maxim - <em>actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea</em> - requires two points to be established in order to convict anyone. Essentially you need to prove  (1) state of mind for that offence (<em>mens rea</em>) and (2) conduct of accused (<em>actus reus</em>). From <strong><a href="https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095349253" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Oxford References</a></strong>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em><strong>actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea</strong></em></p>
<p>[Latin: an act is not necessarily a guilty act unless the accused has
the necessary state of mind required for that offence]</p>
<p>The maxim that, generally, a person cannot be guilty of a crime unless
two elements are present: the * actus reus(“guilty act”) and the *
mens rea (“guilty mind”). Most criminal offences require (1) an actus
reus (conduct “external” to the defendant's thoughts and intentions)
and (2) a mens rea (a specific state of mind on the part of the
accused).</p>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<p><strong>Proof of Crime Against Humanity</strong></p>
<p>From the facts provided in OP's question, I am also not sure that there is a <em><strong><a href="https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199207541.001.0001/acprof-9780199207541-chapter-24" rel="nofollow noreferrer">crime against humanity</a></strong></em> (a legal definition). At most, it would be murder (if there is proof), which is a different offence.</p>
<p>Finally, evidentiary proof is required. The burden is on the prosecution and it isn't as straightforward for complicated cases, which an offence of crime against humanity would be.</p>
<hr />
<p>This is not to say there was no investigation. I do not know of the person or project. But investigations are usually done without broadcasting it to the world. Since I am not privy to this entire matter, I am just giving an opinion.</p>
<p>[Another opinion, this question could be interesting for <strong><a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/">Law SE</a></strong>]</p>

<p>Complementary to @O.M's answer, and specifically to the paragraph the OP commented they disliked:</p>

<p>This is a question beyond law, as politics confounds any question of (international) justice, here local-, regional- and geopolitics. The most extensive and best research I know of in this by B. Rappert and C. Gould, and summarized in the book "<a href="http://www.jacana.co.za/book-categories/new-releases-65840/dis-eases-of-secrecy-tracing-history,-memory-and-justice-detail" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Dis-eases of Secrecy</a>". </p>

<p>From Rappert's page on <a href="https://brianrappert.net/secrecy-absences" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Secrecy &amp; Absences</a> --- Absences often in the sense of Donald Rumsfeld's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Unknown unknowns</a> --- I quote,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>For instance, one of the topics I have investigated along these lines is the former secret Apartheid chemical and biological weapons programme (titled Project Coast). Through the endeavours of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, an extensive legal trial, and various other investigations, the activities of the programme have become treated as emblematic of the perversities of a former time. And yet, each attempt to determine and remember what took place has been structured and delimited by the very investigations that enabled it. Documentary traces and fragments compiled to date signals much still remains unknown and perhaps will never be widely appreciated. As well, despite widespread public discussion about the project, its offensive intentions have never been officially acknowledged by South Africa and other nations. Many have found reason to call for the past to be left in the past.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So it's a mixture of outside indifference and inside convenience, 'as usual'. And having spent a wonderful day in the <a href="http://www.apartheidmuseum.org" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Apartheid museum</a> a few months ago, including its displays on the TRC, the same silence is there.</p>

south-africa