ON RESUMPTION ON 29TH SEPTEMBER 2000 - DAY 18
CHAIRPERSON: We are continuing with the evidence of Mr Barnard. Mr Wessels.
FERDINAND BARNARD: (s.u.o.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WESSELS: (cont)
Thank you. Mr Barnard after the first incident when it became known that you were involved in McQuillan, after the Klaas de Jonge incident then Lafras Luitingh told you that you should not make contact with McQuillan, is that correct?
MR BARNARD: Yes that is correct.
MR WESSELS: You went against his instructions, you immediately afterwards went and did make contact with McQuillan.
MR BARNARD: That is correct. If I recall correctly McQuillan constantly contacted me on the pager and yes I did contact him.
MR WESSELS: And you then, indeed, at the second opportunity comprised the operation or the organisation.
MR BARNARD: I will not say that.
MR WESSELS: With Colonel Viktor.
MR BARNARD: Yes definitely. Not specifically the CCB Sir, I said I thought it was Special Forces I could not tell them who was the chief or the head of the organisation, I did not tell him, and I also pretended that they made use of my services now and again that I had not a fixed position with these people or connection with these people.
MR WESSELS: You testified that Verster and Luitingh were very upset about this.
MR BARNARD: I do not know if Verster was upset about it, but Luitingh was.
MR WESSELS: If Verster knew about it he would have been upset about it?
MR BARNARD: Yes, possibly.
MR WESSELS: Quite likely?
MR BARNARD: Yes definitely.
MR WESSELS: Very well. And Luitingh then told you that because of these actions of yours you have to lie low.
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: That was approximately in April 1989?
MR BARNARD: No Sir I cannot say it was in April because I cannot recall it in that way. My mind tells me that this incident took place somewhere in March, the Security Branch and McQuillan, when it was I cannot say to you but I do not know if it was before or afterwards that I had the Webster contact with these people. It could be that it was correctly - afterwards I put it in the same timeframe because the incident to which I connect this was McQuillan Security Branch in Sandton. It was somewhere around in March and it was not in April.
MR WESSELS: Notwithstanding the fact that you now did not listen to your instructions you comprised the organisation, you received an instruction to lie low and during the same timeframe you are now approached and you are given the instruction to monitor Dr Webster with the eye, is that what you are saying?
MR BARNARD: That is what I said, ja.
MR WESSELS: Ja.
MR BARNARD: Because that's how it happened.
MR WESSELS: Doesn't it seem ridiculous to you that such actions would be committed by Verster and Luitingh?
MR BARNARD: No Sir.
MR WESSELS: At what opportunity did you make mention of the fact that you can shoot him with the shotgun? Was that at the first meeting or the second meeting?
MR BARNARD: It was the second meeting if I am correct.
MR WESSELS: Were you at the first meeting or did you receive your instructions at the first meeting that you had to eliminate him or was it only mentioned that he had to fall?
MR BARNARD: Mr Chairperson I foresaw that I possibly will have to do the shooting although I cannot recall that I received a specific instruction on that day that I was the person who was going to kill him, but I foresaw it.
MR WESSELS: And nobody told you that you had to make a plan to kill him at the first opportunity?
MR BARNARD: No, I had to gather information concerning his routine and movements and I foresaw that I possibly would have to kill him.
MR WESSELS: Did you discuss with anybody how you will kill Dr Webster?
MR BARNARD: No, I cannot recall. I think I discussed it with Calla Botha at a certain stage, but I cannot think that I discussed it with anybody else.
MR WESSELS: You did not discuss this with Eugene Riley?
MR BARNARD: No I am not sure, I do not think so.
MR WESSELS: You do not think so?
MR BARNARD: No, I do not think so.
MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman in the Bundle G, page 60, Mr Barnard there's an extract from the evidence that appears in Judge Els' judgment and Judge Els says the following of Brenda Mills' evidence. She testified that Riley and the accused in their house, her and Riley’s house, had a discussion. They said that Webster had to be killed. Riley suggested that he had to be shot in the head with a sniper rifle, but the accused's reference to you did not agree and he wanted to make use of his own method. Is it true?
MR BARNARD: No, that evidence is not correct. It's also not the evidence of Brenda Mills. It was evidence of Riley’s girlfriend, Julie Wilken, and under cross-examination she conceded that she hated me because I always took him with me on excursions to meet other women, and she also described me in Jacques Pauw's book as, "something that should be crushed like a fly". So she did not like me and it was very clear and all her evidence was false. Eugene Riley was never part of the CCB. He was not tasked with anything or any actions within the CCB or indirectly tasked by the CCB. He was a friend of mine and we had other involvements, but with the Webster incident he had nothing to do with it.
MR WESSELS: Yes you said he was a friend of yours and you had other involvements.
MR BARNARD: I said we had other involvements.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Wessels, could I just ask a question please. Is it possible that you told Eugene Riley, or discussed the killing of Dr Webster with Eugene Riley?
MR BARNARD: Not as far as I can recall before the incident, no, but there's a larger possibility that afterwards, after the incident was committed I did talk to him about it, because I trusted him. But I did not have this issue with the sniper rifle, I cannot shoot with such a rifle because I was not trained to use that rifle. I am somebody that can use a handgun and other rifles or firearms and I would never have considered it as an option, and I also never did.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wessels.
MR WESSELS: It was not you who considered it as an option it was Riley that considered it as an option.
MR BARNARD: That never took place, that discussion never took place.
MR WESSELS: Mr Botha was also your friend.
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: You trusted him as you trusted Riley?
MR BARNARD: Yes.
MR WESSELS: Botha was also not tasked to kill Webster.
MR BARNARD: No he wasn't.
MR WESSELS: But you involved him?
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: Now you say that you then decided that a shotgun would be the rifle to use, or the firearm to use?
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: You then went to go and borrow a shotgun to go and practice with.
MR BARNARD: That actually happened spontaneously. At that stage I was interested in George Mitchell's house, I wanted to buy his house. He was a former policeman. We talked the same language. And I went to go and visit him at his house as usual. We were in his bar, we started talking about firearms, then he went to go and get a nickel-plated Tokarev firearm that was licensed. There were certain modifications done to the firearm and I was interested in that and I looked at the firearm. Then he took out the shotgun, he showed it to me and I said well I am on my way to the South Coast to a friend of mine's farm, lend it to me and I will go and shoot some guinea fowl, because he was very proud about the weapon. He was boasting about it. I then did it. But I foresaw that to see how I can shoot with this firearm from a moving vehicle.
MR WESSELS: But you were not planning to use that firearm?
MR BARNARD: No, I gave it back to him before the incident occurred.
MR WESSELS: You also always thought that you would use your own weapon.
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: Well why didn't you then use one of your own weapons to go and practice? It would then be better to practice with the weapon that you are going to use at the end of the day, is that not true Sir?
MR BARNARD: Yes it is so, but what I did was that after I returned with that weapon I chopped it, or modified that shotgun in the way in which I wanted it. I did not have one ready. I went to come and do this when I returned and I thought this is the right weapon to use.
MR WESSELS: What did you do to this weapon, this weapon that you used in the end?
MR BARNARD: Mr Chairperson I shortened the barrel with about six inches. I took off the butt and put a Pachmayer pistol grip on it. It's very simple. It's not difficult.
MR WESSELS: Then it's like a hand gun with a very long barrel?
MR BARNARD: That is correct, yes.
MR WESSELS: It is quite different from a rifle with a butt.
MR BARNARD: It is a little bit different, yes.
MR WESSELS: Yes it's not a little different, it is a rifle with a butt you press against your shoulder ...(intervention)
MR BARNARD: This one you cannot shoot from the shoulder, correct, ja.
MR WESSELS: This one you cannot shoot from the shoulder, no, this is a hand weapon.
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: You did not go and practice with this weapon.
MR BARNARD: With which weapon?
MR WESSELS: This one that you modified, the murder weapon.
MR BARNARD: No I didn't.
MR WESSELS: So what was the purpose of practising with Mitchell's shotgun?
MR BARNARD: Sir, it was short. It is about hiding a weapon and then leaning out of a window and using it. If it is a very long weapon like a Winchester, or Smith & Wesson then it is this high from the ground. That weapon from Mitchell is this long, and the one that I chopped was the same length when I was finished with it.
MR WESSELS: What type of shotgun was this?
MR BARNARD: I cannot recall.
MR WESSELS: Was it a double-barrel or single-barrel?
MR BARNARD: A double-barrel.
MR WESSELS: Double-barrel, the traditional cock-action shotgun.
MR BARNARD: Yes that's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Barnard the George Mitchell shotgun, was it a sawn-off shotgun or was it a manufactured short shotgun?
MR BARNARD: No Sir it was shortened by somebody. I do not think you can buy it like that.
CHAIRPERSON: And you say you didn't practice at all with your modified one?
MR BARNARD: With the one that I chopped, no, no I didn't.
CHAIRPERSON: So you didn't know what sort of kick to expect or anything like that before you fired it?
MR BARNARD: No, I did not know.
MR WESSELS: With this you did not think to practice with this shotgun in the light of the fact that a shotgun has got a lot of kick-back or backfire and usually you can feel it against your shoulder but now you have to hold it in your hand and it can influence the accuracy of the weapon.
MR BARNARD: It can influence the accuracy of the weapon. It depends on the distance of the shot. I did not do it, I did not practice with it. I came back from the South Coast where I went to that farm and when I returned I modified the weapon in the way in which I wanted it and not long after that the incident took place. I did not go and practice with it.
MR WESSELS: But was this now after the second meeting or before the second meeting?
MR BARNARD: Shortly after the second meeting.
MR WESSELS: You say that you were told that this was an urgent target?
MR BARNARD: That is correct, it was a priority target.
MR WESSELS: A priority target, yes.
MR BARNARD: There was also an urgency involved, yes.
MR WESSELS: Did they make use of the word "urgent"?
MR BARNARD: No, not as far as I can recall but I created the impression and if I think back to it I think there was an urgency, yes.
MR WESSELS: They just told you that this is a priority target?
MR BARNARD: That's correct.
MR WESSELS: They did not tell you that you have to kill the person at a certain date?
MR BARNARD: No, nobody told me.
MR WESSELS: You could do what you thought would be good in the circumstances.
MR BARNARD: No, Sir, I think my evidence-in-chief stated very clearly that there was an urgency that I picked up from the discussions. They did not want Dr Webster to make known certain information. Nobody told me that on the 21st he is going to address the United Nations, there is going to be a report. They did not tell me to take my time. I got the impression that I mustn't worry about Jay Naidoo, that this is the priority. I have to work on this thing and leave the rest.
MR WESSELS: And you did not think to ask how much time you had because that certainly had an influence on how you do your monitoring, how thorough you would be, how thorough the planning would be?
MR BARNARD: No Sir, I did no such enquiries.
MR WESSELS: Was it not important to you to find out how much time you can spend on monitoring and to arrange for security measures for yourself, escape route etc?
MR BARNARD: Sir, if persons said there was a cut-off date they would have told me. I went out and immediately started working on it, on the addresses that I received. Over those few days while I was busy with that if I went there 17 times a day I could and I did.
MR WESSELS: Did they tell you if this was an authorised project that came from the higher ranks?
MR BARNARD: Sir, General Webb did not exist for me. For me it was a situation where Joe Verster was the CCB. If I received an instruction from General Webb I would first clear it with Joe Verster and that's how I felt about it.
CHAIRPERSON: But I think Mr Barnard what Mr Wessels is asking you is, did either Verster or Luitingh tell you that it was an authorised project?
MR BARNARD: No, the fact that it was an authorised project I accepted that, but nobody told me that it was authorised from a higher level.
MR WESSELS: I am just asking this because I noticed in the newspapers, I think it is the Cape Times, mentioned that this operation was authorised from the highest ranks.
MR BARNARD: Is this also my fault?
MR WESSELS: No Mr Barnard. I did not, that I have not put before you yet. Mr Barnard what information did you have about Webster?
MR BARNARD: Mr Chairperson I will not say one or two but I would say two or three articles there was a photograph, an A4 photograph, a black and white photograph of Dr Webster. There were two addresses, Dunbar Street and Eleanor Street. There were a few notes made. I cannot really recall the details thereof but it wasn't really important but the information that I received on questions that I put to them was that Mr Webster was a very prominent figure in the SACP's underground systems. That he worked on the Wits University radical student organisations on campus and then as well as the story concerning - that was discovered in Kosi Bay and he was a manager or a chairperson of various organisations that opposed the government of the day.
MR WESSELS: And you then decided to involved Calla Botha in this incident?
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: When did you make that decision?
MR WESSELS: Mr Chairperson I said that yesterday or the day before yesterday that I foresaw that I had to involve somebody and for me the logical option was Calla Botha. I then formed this option when I left there that I will approach Calla Botha. I started with the observation and I cannot specifically say when I approached him but we probably went there four, five times to Dr Webster's residence before the killing took place.
MR WESSELS: And did you decide to approach Calla Botha after the first or second meeting?
MR BARNARD: The second meeting.
MR WESSELS: I see. You also involved Brenda Mills.
MR BARNARD: I involved her in that I had problems with the observation and as I explained yesterday if we go to the shopping centre, the one that I loved to visit and we go out I would drive past with her and on the way back I would again drive past there to see if there were any movements at the house.
MR WESSELS: And you held these observations with your own vehicle?
MR BARNARD: No it was different vehicles. Sometimes we drove with her vehicle and sometimes with mine.
MR WESSELS: Was this the vehicle that you received when you joined the CCB?
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: And the other vehicle, you said that was Brenda Mills' vehicle?
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: And the day when Dr Webster was killed did you decide on that day, today is the day, or was it just by coincidence that he was killed on that specific day?
MR BARNARD: Mr Chairperson every single opportunity that Mr Botha and I went to the residence of Dr Webster I prepared the vehicle operationally by putting different registration numbers on. The weapon was ready. Then we would leave. On that specific day, because it was Workers' Day, and a public holiday, I woke up that morning and thought maybe we should go and drive past there today and maybe we will see him. I contacted Botha and I went to go and pick him up at his house and we drove to Webster's house.
MR WESSELS: So all that you did was you prepared the vehicle operationally?
MR BARNARD: Yes, as if the job will be on on that day.
MR WESSELS: And what did you do to the vehicle?
MR BARNARD: I just changed the registration numbers.
MR WESSELS: So the same vehicle, the same colour, just with different registration numbers on?
MR BARNARD: That is correct. There is a reason why I chose that vehicle.
MR WESSELS: And why did you?
MR BARNARD: Because it was a very general, common vehicle. The colour was white. I made the comment yesterday with Janus Walus work, I think they made use of a red vehicle, now any policeman or somebody with a police background will tell you which vehicles will stand out and what colour will stand out. If somebody is on a lookout and you are in a police vehicle and they tell you there is a white Golf or a Laser or Conquest they look the same as they drive past you, and every second one is a white one. So there's a reason for that. It creates confusion if you have to look out for it.
MR WESSELS: What was this vehicle?
MR BARNARD: It was a Ford Laser.
MR WESSELS: Was this your vehicle, or was it Brenda Mills' vehicle?
MR BARNARD: Yes it was Brenda Mills' vehicle.
MR WESSELS: The same vehicle that you did the observation with?
MR BARNARD: I will not say that I observed with it, but I'd say we did drive past the house in her vehicle.
MR WESSELS: And that you put different registration plates on every single time?
MR BARNARD: No I did not.
MR WESSELS: Is it just the same ...(intervention)
MR BARNARD: Original number plates.
MR WESSELS: You used the originals, you had the originals and when you then drive with that vehicle you will put different registration numbers on.
MR BARNARD: For the operation I made a set of plates, the same as I did with the Advocate Omar case. I will look for another vehicle while I am in my normal routine, a similar vehicle, the similar model, the similar colour, then I would take this vehicle's registration plates and I will make plates. This is done for example if a normal policeman does an enquiry about a stolen vehicle there is evidence that it's not stolen and it will show that it is the same make and colour, but if somebody comes to look at the engine number or registration number they will realise that it's a different vehicle.
MR WESSELS: And upon how many occasions did you and Mr Botha drive past there?
MR BARNARD: Are you referring to the particular day or since the beginning?
MR WESSELS: Since the beginning.
MR BARNARD: Since the beginning I would say approximately four to five times. I don't want to confine myself to a specific number but I would say five times until the incident took place.
MR WESSELS: And on the particular day?
MR BARNARD: On the particular day we departed for the residence and I explained that it was a one-way street. We came from the top and drove past slowly, twice, possibly thrice we drove past, and then drove around and then came back later from the top again. And then I decided that we would stop for a little while because we could not see the bakkie in which we had seen Dr Webster before. We could not see the bakkie. We decided to wait for a while and then the bakkie arrived from behind.
MR WESSELS: And did you foresee that you would use a disguise?
MR BARNARD: No the disguise that I would use would be the balaclava. It was the best form of disguise. All those stories of wigs that I wore and things like that are a myth. I never did anything like that. I later discovered that the person who compiled all these different identikits was someone from the Defence Force. I thought it was something which was set-up by the CCB in order to create confusion. I don't know to this day whether that was in fact the case.
MR WESSELS: And it was always foreseen that this would probably take place during the day?
MR BARNARD: The day?
MR WESSELS: Yes.
MR BARNARD: No, not necessarily, I cannot say that.
MR WESSELS: Did you ever discuss these aspects with Lafras Luitingh and Joe Verster?
MR BARNARD: Which aspects?
MR WESSELS: That you should be disguised.
MR BARNARD: Sir these people hired me as a murderer. They hired me for my capacity to kill people, not for my capacity as an Intelligence Officer or a detective. When they hired me they didn't want to see anything except the devilish streaks that I had in me.
MR WESSELS: So if you testified upon any occasion that you were hired or that you became a member of the CCB because you had contacts in the underworld and in the drug networks, then it would not be the truth?
MR BARNARD: It is so. I did it because that is where the original information came from, and if you look at the information that emanated from those sources that specific information was target-oriented information upon which the CCB acted abroad.
MR WESSELS: Mr Barnard when you commenced your evidence yesterday, in your evidence-in-chief you stated words to the effect that everything that has been said about you is the truth and then some and then some more.
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: And you were serious when you said that?
MR BARNARD: Yes.
MR WESSELS: And it is the truth?
MR BARNARD: It is the truth.
MR WESSELS: Willie Smit testified during your criminal trial before Judge Els, isn't that so?
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: And he told Judge Els what you told him and when I say that you told him things I mean that you made certain admissions regarding the death of Dr Webster.
MR BARNARD: Yes it was one of his versions thereof
MR WESSELS: And Judge Els accepted his evidence.
MR BARNARD: I cannot say that, I don't know. I did not read Judge Els' judgment. I was in C-Max.
MR WESSELS: Well the decision is here and his evidence was accepted.
MR BARNARD: I cannot comment on that. There was also another Judge who rejected his evidence, Judge Stegmann, on a previous occasion after he began to speak in a very confusing way during cross-examination and basically contradicted everything that had been said.
MR WESSELS: Be that as it may I would like to read to you from the judgment given by Judge Els. Chairperson it is Volume G, page 62, the Judge refers to WPJ Smit, better known as Willy Smit, who testified that he met the accused in the mid-eighties. That he himself, in 1987 worked at ACA Insurance and that the accused also worked there for a period of two to three months. He states that it was during 1988.
"When the accused left ACA Insurance he told Smit that he would be working for the Security Police and that he was going to monitor activists primarily. During February the witness began his own business by the name of Profsure. The accused regularly visited the new business and on an ad hoc basis did work for Smit. The accused and the accused's brother, Calla Barnard..."
and it is not Calla Botha, but Calla Barnard who is your brother.....
"...visited him one evening. He said it was during one and two in the morning and they told him that they were busy monitoring a certain Mr White, the complainant with Charge 3, and that they had then been taken in by the Security Police. The accused state that they wanted to take out Mr White as well. The accused asked the witness if he was aware of Dr Webster's death and told him that he, the accused, had shot Dr Webster."
Smith testifies -
"They told me that it had been one of their instructions, among others, to take out Mr White as well and that Mr White had been a personal friend of Dr Webster's."
At a certain stage after Colonel J Smit asked the witness, Smit, this is now Willy Smit, the accused again came to him and once again repeated that he had shot Dr Webster. He then testifies as follows:
"Your Lordship he told us this various times. It was general knowledge. He told this to anyone who wanted to listen. He said that he had shot Dr Webster. On another occasion the accused stated that he had shot Webster with a shotgun. On an occasion Smit made a statement to W/O Rossouw, as he was then, who was the detective regarding the death of Dr Webster. The following day, the accused's brother, Calla Barnard and the father of the accused visited him, Smit, and requested him to make a statement in which he would state that everything he had previously told Rossouw was really hearsay and that he didn't have any personal knowledge of the facts that he gave to Rossouw. Later he made a statement with the objective of the Webster post mortem inquest and what is contained in there is the truth. The statement was made on the 16th of October 1992 and on the 28th of October 1992 he testified during the Webster post mortem inquest. He stated that what he said on the 28th of October 1992 in evidence was the truth.
On the following day he was placed under cross-examination by Advocate or attorney Pietie du Plessis who appeared on behalf of the accused and Calla Botha during the post mortem inquest. During cross-examination there was an adjournment at approximately 11 o'clock that morning. During the adjournment a certain Mr Mouton approached him and asked him how it was possible that he, Smit, could testify against a fellow Afrikaner. Mouton also said to him that he was busy playing with his family's future. (This is the family of the witness). He understood that his children could be harmed. During that time Smit was having an extra-marital affair with his secretary. Mouton asked Smit whether his wife was aware of this extramarital affair and when he responded in the negative Mouton informed him that Attorney Pietie du Plessis would disclose this directly after the adjournment in court. He asked Mouton what he was supposed to do, upon which Mouton stated that he should deny everything that he had testified to at that stage and that it would be the easiest way for Smit to escape the situation. Smit's advocate, Adv H de Vos requested an adjournment of a few days from the court. This request was refused and the cross-examination of Smit by Attorney du Plessis was continued. Upon everything that Attorney du Plessis then put to him he stated "I concede" or he confirmed what was put to him although it was completely in contradiction with his original evidence."
Do you recall this Mr Barnard?
MR BARNARD: I recall it, yes.
MR WESSELS: Do you recall the evidence before Judge Els?
MR BARNARD: Smit's evidence?
MR WESSELS: Yes.
MR COETZEE: Chairperson may I just bring something to your attention at this point. My learned colleague has the summary of the evidence of Smit which he has just presented to you. I do not know whether he has actually read the full body of evidence which was given by Smit during evidence-in-chief and cross-examination before Judge Els, but if you would look at Bundle G, and indeed page 212 of the said Bundle, where it is about the evaluation of Smit's evidence I would like to read aloud to you, however my page is not a complete copy, there is a white line going through this page so I will have some trouble identifying the words, but when it comes to the evaluation, the final paragraph of Willy Smit's evaluation perhaps I could just obtain that page from you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mine also has a white line down there.
MR COETZEE: May I then just read this into the record so that my learned friend could bring this to his attention.
"If his evidence..."
and this is the reference to Willy Smit's evidence....
"...should be considered in isolation we would have hesitated to accept it, however there are sufficient grounds for his evidence and consequently in those regards where there is substantiation it will be accepted".
I would just like to place it in context with regard to the evaluation of the evidence and not merely the summation of the evidence as such.
MR WESSELS: Yes Chairperson, I am indebted to my learned colleague. Perhaps we should read the entire piece of what is said by the Judge, from page 212 onwards. The Judge is evaluating the evidence and he refers to Willy Smit as follows:
"There is a stigma which is attached to this witness because during the Webster post mortem inquest he changed his evidence after an adjournment. It would appear from his evidence that at that stage he was threatened or intimidated during the adjournment to do so. Upon reading the Webster post mortem inquest it was crystal clear that something must have occurred during the adjournment which would have led him to recall his evidence completely, therefore his explanation does not sound far-fetched especially when considered that Badenhorst......."
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Wessels, the Interpreter has just asked if you could go a little bit slower please.
MR WESSELS: I repeat it. I will begin in the middle.
"Upon reading the Webster post mortem inquest it became crystal clear that something must have taken place during the adjournment which led him to recall his evidence completely."
I will stand there for the moment. Mr Barnard as the Advocate has stated everything should be read together but it is very clear from the record that Willy Smit, it's substantiated in his allegations, that he was intimidated during the Webster post mortem inquest and the Judge accepts that. Would you agree that the Judge was correct?
MR BARNARD: No I do not agree. I think what happened was that there was a good case hearing as it happened with Willy Smit and additionally if there's any reference to records we should not only consult the records of my criminal trial but we should consult the record of his cross-examination when he testified during the PMI. What actually took place during the tea adjournment is that I recalled something in which he and I were both involved and he attached the Webster admission to an incident where a Pretoria police officer was involved. I know how the police operate, I know that there are records of everything that takes place and so forth, and during the tea adjournment I went to phone Mr Fuerter(?) and General Hume, they consulted their pocket books and they saw that what I had said is something that he knew about. And then he folded. And when he saw Colonel Fuerter come in and that the notebook was handed in to the Presiding Judge he folded at that point and not at another point.
MR WESSELS: So Judge Els had the wrong idea.
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: Then I am astonished that yesterday in your evidence you made mention of the fact that everything that was found was correct, that you had not said that Judge Els was mistaken.
MR BARNARD: Please, I did not work through thousands of pages of evidence to make a finding against the Judge. That is not my job. I don't even have the training to do so. I never said that.
MR WESSELS: Well the record will show clearly ...(intervention)
MR BARNARD: Yes it will.
MR WESSELS: Mr Barnard on the first day of the evidence of Willy Smit, the 28th, the day upon which he testified that the evidence given during that day was the truth and when the Judge also accepted his evidence he came to give evidence and he testified that you had a photo album which you showed him, among others, and in this photo album there were photographs of more than 20 persons whom you had murdered. Do you recall that evidence?
MR BARNARD: Yes I recall the evidence and I also know what he is referring to.
MR WESSELS: Yes, is his evidence the truth? Is it true that you had such a photo album containing such photographs and that you boasted then and there that you had murdered all these persons?
MR BARNARD: No, what he saw was a photo album which had been compiled throughout my years in service to the South African Police, there were shooting incidents in which I had been involved during which robbers were shot dead, or during which persons had attacked me with firearms and also incidents in which my partner had been involved. In other words shooting incidents with regard to the Narcotics Branch where I worked, scenes and photographs of scenes that I had visited. I didn't say that I killed all those persons but some of them were killed by me. And sometimes there was a newspaper clipping to accompany the photograph. I didn't really want it any more but I had it at one point. It was locked in a cupboard in my office. We were busy tapping telephone lines of certain assessors. He saw the photo album there, he asked if he could look through it, it was a question of general record. It was public knowledge and I am not shirking from that.
MR WESSELS: Wasn't there anything sinister about any of those persons who had died?
MR BARNARD: No I don't think so.
MR WESSELS: What was your evidence during the PMI? Did you deny that such an album existed which contained all those photographs?
MR BARNARD: I cannot recall.
MR WESSELS: Did you admit that there was nothing sinister? Did you state that this was simply a photo album of persons to whom reference had been made during PMIs or who, during the normal and legal course of your duties and your partner had been shot?
MR BARNARD: I cannot recall.
MR WESSELS: Well we will obtain the record Mr Barnard and we will determine to what extent you are lying or not.
MR BARNARD: Then get the record.
MR WESSELS: You see Mr Barnard I want to put it to you that during that PMI you did not provide this explanation, the explanation that exonerated you, and that Willy Smit's evidence was indeed the truth, that these were persons whom you had killed and that you boasted about the fact that these were persons who had been killed by you, and that you created the impression that you were indeed a hit-man.
MR BARNARD: I do not have to create the impression, the record speaks for itself. I had spent time in jail previously for killing people and now I am doing the same. It doesn't have anything to do with something that I am not. That is what I am. I cannot escape that.
MR WESSELS: But I want to know more about the others that you have killed, those that we don't know about Mr Barnard.
MR BARNARD: If there are any such persons bring them and then we can finish that off as well.
MR WESSELS: I would like to know if there are any other persons whom you have killed the details regarding which have not yet been disclosed.
MR BARNARD: You asked me yesterday and I said no.
MR WESSELS: You said you couldn't recall.
MR BARNARD: I said that I didn't know of them, not that I knew of them. I would have recalled if there was anything like that which was beyond police context.
MR WESSELS: You and Lafras Luitingh didn't get along very well, is that correct?
MR BARNARD: Yes we had a personality clash.
MR WESSELS: From the very beginning?
MR BARNARD: He was one of those guys that I didn't really like and I could sense that he didn't like me either and it was that way since the beginning, so-to-speak.
MR WESSELS: How long were you in the CCB?
MR BARNARD: I cannot give you precise dates but I think it was approximately 18 months.
MR WESSELS: And how did you leave the CCB?
MR BARNARD: I was arrested in terms of section 29, I was detained, and after my discharge from the section 29 detention it just happened that I went over to DCC. Nobody told me that I would be fired from such and such a day. I was just told the CCB is finished.
MR WESSELS: When were you discharged from section 29 detention?
MR BARNARD: I don't know. I cannot tell you. It was approximately 5 days before Nelson Mandela's release. I think it was 1991.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Barnard you said that, just correct me if I am wrong, that it was in July that you got a three month salary from Luitingh?
MR BARNARD: June, but it was for June, or July, August and September.
CHAIRPERSON: And then, October, November, did you get a salary for those months?
MR BARNARD: No then I was then under arrest and I was in detention. I cannot recall the precise period but I know that in November I took out an AK47, so I was already in detention. I had spent much time in detention and I was only released in February.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR WESSELS: The last month for which you got a salary was then September 1989?
MR BARNARD: Yes, as far as I can recall.
MR WESSELS: And in November you were arrested.
MR BARNARD: I cannot say that I was arrested in November. I think I was arrested before November. I can recall that I read somewhere in the documents that I had to hand over the AK47 to the Warrant Officer because they thought that was the AK47 that killed Lubowski. I then considered everything and I thought, yes, there is an AK, they are going to lock up innocent people, people whom I asked to hide the AK47, they wanted to know if this was the AK47 that killed Lubowski, that was a brand new AK47 that was mine, it had never fired a shot. I picked up the AK47 rather than locking up my brother who had a family and asked to hide the weapon. And then I cut a deal with the General, I take the punch for the AK47, do not charge anybody else, I'll take it out and you can see if it is the one that killed Lubowski.
MR WESSELS: So you received the last sum of money from the CCB in September and afterwards not again?
MR BARNARD: Afterwards I received money for my holiday although I did not have direct contact with the CCB, there was a situation where the attorneys who were appointed by the CCB, Schultz & Botha, and their legal costs and the applications that were brought for my release while I was under section 29, all those legal costs were paid by the CCB. And also with my post mortem inquest and the Harms Commission, everything was paid by the Defence Force. I wonder why they do that for somebody who was fired months ago.
MR WESSELS: They did not pay your salary though?
MR BARNARD: I did not receive a salary from the time when I was arrested, as I have told you before.
MR WESSELS: You see it is interesting that they will not pay your salary but they will cover your legal costs if you were a member of the CCB.
MR BARNARD: When did they not pay my salary?
MR WESSELS: You say that the last salary that you received was in September 1989.
MR BARNARD: I was busy talking about something else and I went over to the legal costs. With my release I went to the attorneys' offices, or I was called to the offices and they asked me what were my immediate needs. I asked for R6000,00. It was more-or-less that. I went to Nick McPherson, who was a senior police officer at the Detective Branch of the Security Police, he was in a co-ordinating capacity and they handed bags of money to attorneys to cover the legal costs, so as not to make it traceable back to the CCB. They then contacted him and I was told to pick up R12,000. The next day the CCB gave me R12,000. I went to go and pick it up from the attorneys' offices. And they also told me that I make use of the rest of the money to go on holiday, which I then did, for two weeks.
MR WESSELS: Why do you say you received it from the CCB? You got it from McPherson, a policeman.
MR BARNARD: Yes Sir but McPherson was the policeman who was the liaison officer for the attorneys who were paid, they were paid large amounts of money. After I was released from section 29 I went to go and gamble with all these attorneys who were involved, Hennie Goosen and another advocate, who were appointed by the Defence Force and who were manipulated by them. I knew exactly how they paid over the money. I was present.
MR WESSELS: What was your salary?
MR BARNARD: With benefits, R40,000 to R42,000 a month.
MR WESSELS: And did you resign from the CCB?
MR WESSELS: No Chairperson. If I can recall correctly I was told by the attorneys that the CCB disbanded. They were the people who spoke for me. There were no channels to Joe Verster or General Webb. They left us alone. Everybody had to do his own thing.
MR WESSELS: And you did not make any claims at a later stage for a package from the CCB?
MR BARNARD: No I did not.
MR WESSELS: You are aware of the fact that the CCB officially disbanded and it was not a secret. That was during the second half of 1990.
MR BARNARD: Yes I can remember that, I cannot specifically recall the date, but I do know that they disbanded.
MR WESSELS: And according to you they then owed you a salary up to that point in time?
MR BARNARD: I cannot specifically say that but at some time they told me that the CCB disbanded. That's how they work. They tell you something, they disinform you in order to support their own objectives.
MR WESSELS: The CCB disbanded during 1990, second half of 1990 and according to you money would have been, or was owed to you because of salaries that they still owed you.
MR BARNARD: No, I asked nobody for salaries, I only asked ...(intervention)
MR WESSELS: No Sir, I do not ask you if you asked them for it, I am asking you if they owed you it because you were a member of the CCB and according to the contract you can get that salary, or the salaries that they still owed you.
MR BARNARD: Well Sir I immediately went over to DCC and I got a salary there.
MR WESSELS: And you are aware of the fact that all the members of the CCB received packages of some kind?
MR BARNARD: No I am not aware of that. I am aware of the fact that some of them wanted to take the CCB to court, or did take them to court because they did not receive their packages.
MR WESSELS: Yes that is true. Some received it when it was offered to them, they accepted it and some of them also went to DCC.
MR BARNARD: Yes, like I did.
MR WESSELS: But they still received packages.
MR BARNARD: I do not know Sir.
MR WESSELS: Some of them did not want to accept it and entered into litigation with the South African Defence Force in order to honour their contract.
MR BARNARD: I can recall that, yes.
MR WESSELS: And at a later stage they resolved the issue.
MR BARNARD: I do not know about that.
MR WESSELS: So all the members of the CCB who were members of the CCB when they disbanded received money as a severance package.
MR BARNARD: I do not know about that Sir, but apart from that I wanted to distance myself from them. I was experiencing a lot of problems. I did not want to have any contact with them further.
MR WESSELS: You see Mr Barnard I find it very strange, actually astonishing that you are the only person that did not receive a package. You are a member of the CCB, you must get a salary, you do not get that salary, but you do not even ask for that salary. You leave the CCB, you receive a package or a substantial amount of money, all these amounts were audited. There are records of it. Everybody receives money except you, and I find this remarkable. Can you give us an explanation why you were so generous towards the government and the Defence Force that you didn't want the money.
MR BARNARD: Is it too late, is it maybe too late now? Can I still get that money?
MR WESSELS: Mr Barnard you can first answer my question.
MR BARNARD: Sir I did not do it because I wanted to distance myself from them. I was immediately coopted or taken into the DCC and I was not interested in it. And I also never signed a contract with them that if the CCB disbanded I will receive this and this and this. I didn't do it.
MR WESSELS: Various other members of the CCB also went to DCC.
MR BARNARD: It's seems to be the case, yes.
MR WESSELS: And they received money.
MR BARNARD: I am very glad that they did.
MR WESSELS: You disappeared, you do not ask for money.
MR BARNARD: No I didn't.
MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson I would just like to place this in context. The other members, or most of the other members to which my learned colleague is referring to were people who had existing work in the police, Coetzee from Region 6, for example, who served in State departments for a period of time and people who were recruited, I believe Mr Barnard's evidence is that he was not recruited from such a system where he had benefits as a State official or officer.
CHAIRPERSON: I think that's probably a question for argument. We are aware that people like Mr van Zyl and others actually gave up employment to become members of the CCB and that was not the case of Mr Barnard. He came from an unemployed situation into the CCB.
MR WESSELS: Mr Barnard there were various other members in the CCB who also came from different categories to come and work for the CCB.
MR BARNARD: Can I just place that in perspective if the Advocate wants to cross-examine on this point.
MR WESSELS: Mr Barnard let me come back to my question to you ...(intervention)
MR BARNARD: I would just like to answer before you continue. I have placed it on record more than once and I would like to do it once again, that I was dealt with in a different way, that it is very clear that I was dealt with in a different way. They never offered a contract to me and told me I can claim money, and I never did it.
MR WESSELS: Mr Barnard what I cannot understand is that if you were now treated in a different way or not they owed you money. You are a member of the CCB, you receive a monthly salary, you do not even ask them for the money.
MR BARNARD: No I did not do it.
MR WESSELS: And they do not offer it either. All the other people received money, not just their salaries but also substantial severance packages. But you also do not ask for that.
MR BARNARD: Sir, I am not an attorney. I did not look at it in the way in which you are looking at it. I was informed and led by the legal representative who acted on my behalf on the instructions of the CCB and those people told me that the CCB will disband and I am not going to continue, and that's why I went to the DCC.
MR WESSELS: No Mr Barnard I will put to you the reason why you did not ask for your salary was, why you did not receive the substantial severance package was because you were not a member of the CCB.
MR BARNARD: Ja that's a new one Sir, but I do not agree with you.
MR WESSELS: No Mr Barnard that's not a new one, it's a very old thing where from the beginning it was testified and you conceded to it that Lafras Luitingh fired you in March 1988 after you compromised the organisation or it became known that you worked at a State organisation with the McQuillan project.
MR BARNARD: Yes Sir, but then I also find it on my side very astonishing that people spent hundreds of thousands of rand on my legal costs, why would they do it, if I had then nothing to do with them, why did they do it?
MR WESSELS: You were arrested and you made a statement under section 29 while you were under arrest.
MR BARNARD: More than one.
MR WESSELS: More than one. There you did not admit that you were involved in Webster, you denied it.
MR BARNARD: That's correct.
MR WESSELS: But what you did admit was that you were involved in the conspiracy to kill Dullah Omar.
MR BARNARD: I cannot recall if I admitted to my conspiracy or my involvement in that. It is possible.
MR WESSELS: Well let us look at what you've said.
CHAIRPERSON: What legal costs were paid by the Defence Force for you Mr Barnard?
MR BARNARD: Mr Chairperson while I was under detention, according to section 29, there were two applications for my release. Each was about R20-R30,000, where the cash was conveyed to Calla Botha. It was given to my father so that he will come forward as a front person to cover the costs. During the Harms Commission they paid all my legal costs. In the formal post mortem inquest of Dr Webster they paid everything.
CHAIRPERSON: And did you have any costs in regard to the inquest?
MR BARNARD: No it was all paid by the Defence Force.
CHAIRPERSON: And your trial?
MR BARNARD: The trial they did not pay for. At this stage the government of the day had changed and I could not turn to them.
CHAIRPERSON: So it was the two applications while you were detained in terms of section 29, the costs incurred at the inquest into the death of Dr Webster and costs incurred by yourself in respect of the Harms Commission.
MR BARNARD: That is correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: You say those costs were paid by ...(intervention)
MR BARNARD: Then at the Goldstone Commission I also appeared. I am not quite if they paid, or who paid for it. I did not pay anything when I appeared before the Goldstone Commission. I did have a legal representative.
MR WESSELS: If you look at Bundle B, page 92, the second last paragraph reads as follows:
"At a certain stage I had a liaison with Slang van Zyl. He asked me if I can collect information on Dullah Omar in the Cape. That was his instruction but he would pay me very well if I get this information. I went to the Cape three times and returned to get the named information. On the third time Slang joined me in the Cape and told me that Dullah had to be killed."
The next paragraph -
"Slang van Zyl handed over a Makarov pistol with a silencer or he showed it to me and he told me that this was the weapon that Jack provided them with to do the work on Omar".
Then it continues, they make mention of the poison, is that now true Mr Barnard?
MR BARNARD: Yes Sir, here I knew that if there was a problem I would have the back-up that Slang van Zyl can support me. So I did not do it on my own, running around. It's not quite true that I knew it from the beginning that I had to kill him.
MR WESSELS: But the point is Sir you asked me a question, I would like to answer that. You asked me why your legal costs were paid, now I will put it to you that the possibility is that your costs were paid because you compromised the organisation which was a secret organisation.
MR BARNARD: I do note of it ...(intervention)
MR WESSELS: That is the reason, not because you were a member who would be involved in the Webster case.
MR BARNARD: Why would they pay for the Webster case then, it's got nothing to do with this?
MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman might I ask, is this Mr Wessels' client's instructions or is this a hypothesis that he's putting to the witness?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wessels?
MR WESSELS: Sir I said the possible reason could be is because he compromised the organisation and that's why they paid for his legal costs.
MR KAHANOVITZ: The point I am trying to make Mr Chairman is Mr Wessels doesn't need to speculate. He can put his client's version to the witness, and I would suggest that he does so.
MR WESSELS: Well Mr Chairman my client wasn't cross-examined on the basis of the evidence that Mr Barnard has given. We were surprised by the evidence that Mr Barnard gave here when he entered the witness box. It came to us as a complete surprise. I don't have instructions on many of these aspects and before I can put a version I would have to have a postponement which will probably be asked for in due course.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes we understand what Mr Wessels is putting is not as a result of instructions received but I don't think it's causing anybody any harm.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But can I just then place on record I take it that the same then applies to what was put to the witness when it was said that "everybody in the CCB besides Mr Barnard received a package on termination", was that a submission put or was that based on actual evidence that will be led?
MR WESSELS: That is based on actual evidence that is available. Those are my instructions.
MR MARTINI: Sorry, Chairperson, just to correct the record Mr van Zyl's evidence was that he resigned and he never got any package. People are putting here that, Mr Kahanovitz has now put that "everybody" received. Mr van Zyl's direct evidence was that he resigned in October '89 and he never received any packages from the CCB because he resigned.
MR LAX: Just for the record, Mr Wessels put it, not Mr Kahanovitz. Mr Kahanovitz was just repeating the original assertion.
MR MARTINI: Yes Mr Lax I just want to correct the record that "everybody" does not include Mr van Zyl.
MR WESSELS: No, no, let me make it clear. When I say "everybody", I think I put it when I put questions to Mr Barnard, at the time of the dissolution of the CCB all the members that were members at the time of the dissolution of the CCB, were paid. Not people that were previously discharged or had resigned or any of that nature.
MR BARNARD: Mr Chairman while I am listening to this discussion I never resigned at any stage. I was told that the CCB disbanded and when I returned from holiday after the two weeks I was transferred to DCC. I remained in the Defence Force.
MR WESSELS: Mr Barnard I will put it to you that Mr Verster was told by General Badenhorst to take you up into the CCB. It was against his knowledge but he was forced to do it and the first time when you broke the rules you were discharged.
MR BARNARD: That is not correct. I read somewhere that Joe Verster made a statement, that I hope is a printing error, that he said I was part of the CCB for three months as a trial period. That is so absurd I do not even want to react on that.
CHAIRPERSON: Just a point just out of interest what was the highest rank you held in the police force?
MR BARNARD: Mr Chairperson I wrote exams up to lieutenant's level but I waited for my promotion. I was a detective when the bomb exploded with the first shooting incident. I did write the exams and I was waiting for my promotion. It was held back and I was then charged with the murders.
CHAIRPERSON: So what were you, a warrant officer?
MR BARNARD: I was qualified as a warrant officer but I had the rank of a sergeant.
CHAIRPERSON: Sergeant, yes, thank you.
MR WESSELS: Mr Barnard when you went to the DCC what was your rank?
MR BARNARD: Sir I never received a rank there. I was appointed as an agent and I was handled as an agent, and when they were satisfied with the work that I did they told me that I would get a possible promotion. I also wrote a report on it and I said I do not want to be an informer for the rest of my life, I want to make a career of it and I was then appointed as the chief agent. They never gave me a military rank.
MR WESSELS: And you were only an agent?
MR BARNARD: Yes I was an agent and later chief agent.
MR WESSELS: When were you released from prison for the murders and other offences that you were sent to jail for in 1984?
MR BARNARD: December 1987.
MR WESSELS: And then you went to work for ACA Insurance Company?
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: And after you left there what did you do?
MR BARNARD: That is when the CCB recruited me.
MR WESSELS: I see. Did you have any finances, did you have any money at that point in time?
MR BARNARD: No Chairperson I had nothing. I didn't have a lot of money as such.
MR WESSELS: The only money that you had was what you earned via your income from the CCB.
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: Where would you have obtained the money to purchase Mitchell's house?
MR BARNARD: I was told at a certain stage that I would be assisted, that the CCB would assist me in obtaining a deposit for the house but I didn't get it from them, I paid it in payments.
MR WESSELS: How much did you pay?
MR BARNARD: I can no longer recall. I cannot recall the deposit that I paid. There was an amount of a R10,000 and then an amount of R90,000. I am not precisely certain.
MR WESSELS: What was the sale price of the house?
MR BARNARD: I think it was R128,000 but I am not certain. I really cannot recall those particulars today.
MR WESSELS: And until when did you stay in that house?
MR BARNARD: I sold the house after I was arrested.
MR WESSELS: You sold it?
MR BARNARD: Yes after I was arrested. In order to cover some of my legal expenses I sold the house.
MR WESSELS: So you had considerable expenses during 1989 and 1990?
MR BARNARD: Yes I had expenses, I don't know what you would regard as considerable. I bought the house on a Deed of Sale, in other words I gave a deposit and then an arrangement was made with regard to the payments between me and Mr Mitchell.
MR WESSELS: Mr Barnard while you were in prison you were visited by Mr Botha on a regular basis, once a month so-to-speak.
MR BARNARD: Yes that is correct. I have a restricted number of visits, only three per month, and usually it wasn't that way I usually had one visit of 45 minutes per month in C-Max, but as I progressed to A Group in two years time I have privileges of three visits per month and that is why I divide the visits up among those who wish to see me. But Mr Botha who supports me loyally visits me twice a month. If he wants to visit me twice a month I will grant him two visitations. Even if he wants three visitations I will do so because he's a friend of mine.
MR WESSELS: When did you tell Mr Botha that you were going to disclose the facts that the CCB had given you the instruction to shoot Dr Webster dead?
MR BARNARD: I only took that decision here due to the events that took place here. I wasn't planning on disclosing any information here, among others with our first session here I sent Joe Verster a message not to worry that I wasn't going to testify about Webster, that I wouldn't answer questions about it, that was my attitude. And the following day he sat down next to me and said that he was very glad to hear about it but that I should "fuck up" the General. I don't know why he wanted that because we reported to General Webb. I think the General should be "fucked up" because he didn't give the order. It's the case of the tail wagging the dog.
MR WESSELS: Mr Barnard when did you decide to give the evidence that you have given over the last few days? Upon what occasion did you make that decision? Was it last week or was it upon the previous occasion that we had session here, when was it?
MR BARNARD: I think I formed the set-up on our previous session here. I started considering it. I lay awake at night. I reconsidered everything and I decided I wanted to get rid of this mess.
MR WESSELS: And when did you decide that you would indeed follow through with this?
MR BARNARD: I cannot tell you specifically. I don't know.
MR WESSELS: Can you not give us an approximation, tell us whether it was last week or a day after the previous session.
MR BARNARD: I think it was approximately with the previous session because I told my attorney that I would not be testifying from my application. I had a feeling about the matter, I prayed about it and I felt that I wanted to disclose everything.
MR WESSELS: You wanted to disclose everything?
MR BARNARD: Yes.
MR WESSELS: Did you tell Botha about it when he came to visit you in prison since the previous session?
MR BARNARD: Yes.
MR WESSELS: So he knew that you were going to disclose or expose everything?
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: And before the previous session you had not planned to make any kind of exposure?
MR BARNARD: I don't really understand you, could you repeat yourself.
MR WESSELS: You were not planning to testify here that Verster and Luitingh had given you the instruction to shoot Dr Webster dead and everything that went along with that?
MR BARNARD: No. I only took the decision when I decided to turn around and tell the truth. Originally I had typed out a version for myself, a version that I wrote and typed out in which I supported Slang van Zyl in all aspects regarding his evidence and was not prepared to answer any other questions beyond the framework of that statement, and then the events to which I referred to yesterday took place and systematically I started changing my mind and I decided to come and tell the truth. That is what happened.
MR WESSELS: And when you decided with the previous session that you would not bring the same evidence that everybody expected you to, did you warn anyone or did you tell anyone that this was going to happen?
MR BARNARD: No, for a number of reasons I did not do so. The most important being intimidation, intimidation from people on the outside and influence. I didn't want to do it, I didn't want anybody to know what I was going to do.
CHAIRPERSON: But you just told us you did tell Mr Botha.
MR WESSELS: I told Mr Botha because I trust him and he was also told that it shouldn't go any further and that he should not convey this knowledge to anybody.
MR WESSELS: You have stated that you and Botha have come a long way together, that you are blood brothers, but he is not in jail with you.
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Would this be a convenient time to take the tea adjournment Mr Wessels.
MS COLERIDGE: Mr Chairman I am sorry I had a request that we sit until 11H30.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay, we have had a request that we sit until 11h30, is that a request from the caterers, the people who make the tea.
MS COLERIDGE: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Right, we will sit until 11h30, sorry, as you were.
MR WESSELS: Mr Barnard you testified to a question which was put to you by your advocate that while you were in the CCB and you also discussed this with Mr Botha, all of you were handled on a strictly need-to-know basis.
MR BARNARD: It was supposed to be that way, yes.
MR WESSELS: When did you realise that Mr Botha was working for the same organisation as you?
MR BARNARD: I cannot say. I told you that at a certain stage we exercised together and we would check each other out and then one day we spoke about it. It was one of those affirmative phases.
MR WESSELS: I didn't hear you.
MR BARNARD: I assumed that it was during Botha's establishment phase.
MR WESSELS: Was it before the Webster incident?
MR BARNARD: Yes it was quite some time before the Webster incident.
MR WESSELS: And there was a strict procedure which was created according to which Mr Botha was to act inasfar as it concerned his work with the CCB?
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR WESSELS: A strict basis of need-to-know, correct?
MR BARNARD: Yes.
MR WESSELS: He knew that instructions were given in a certain manner which would be supported by the regional manager as we have heard here, is that correct?
MR BARNARD: Yes it must be correct.
MR WESSELS: And when you told him to become involved with Webster and that it was the CCB wasn't he surprised that in the light of everything that he had learnt you came along and received a direct instruction from Joe Verster to commit the act yourself?
MR BARNARD: I cannot see the problem with that. The cut-off point was Joe Verster. What Joe Verster and Lafras Luitingh had was a water-tight point. I didn't know their identities. My only point of contact with them was a pager which was hired under the name of David Klopper and I knew it wasn't David Klopper because here we had a man who introduced himself as Louis Eisselaar. They had a very water-tight cut-off point with me. No-one knew that Tiens Kruger told me that this was Joe Verster and that was Lafras Luitingh. He did parachute jumping with Lafras Luitingh and he informed me. According to them they had a water-tight cut-off point.
MR WESSELS: How can it be that way, Mr Barnard, because if you were to be arrested for Webster it would be very easy for you to get to them by means of Kruger, at the very least, or by Botha?
MR BARNARD: You cannot say that because I could take them to Kruger and Kruger could deny everything and he could say the man is crazy, he has just come out of prison, he has a record for theft and murder. No-one would believe me. If I came and spoke of the secret Defence Force organisation they would deny everything. Even today still they deny that I was a member of their organisation. Why would they have admitted to it then?
MR WESSELS: So you say that the mere denial from Kruger would have been enough and the police would have accepted that as such.
MR BARNARD: Sir, Kruger worked at head office in the CCB. Police visited him regularly and from him they went to Joe Verster and they would plan things. They could plan to discredit me for example. This is a man who came out of jail they would think, and they would think of ways to discredit me. The man is a recce, he wouldn't jump out immediately and say I know everything, here are the computer records, that's the story. These people felt self-satisfied with themselves. I know that I caused problems because I didn't obey the rules, but at least I got something done. One could become such a spy that one would become so isolated that one would never get anything done. From what I can see I was one of the busiest people in the CCB, because everybody else was busy with establishment. I was the only one who was really working.
MR WESSELS: When did you determine that Slang van Zyl was a CCB member?
MR BARNARD: From a discussion with Calla Botha. I cannot say specifically when, but when we had the discussion Mr Botha disclosed to me that Chappie Maree, Staal Burger and all of them were recruited together as a group.
MR WESSELS: Was that before or after Webster?
MR BARNARD: I am assuming that it was before Webster. I cannot recall specifically with regards to dates and times but logic tells me that it was prior to Webster.
MR WESSELS: And at any points in the past did you work for more than one institution?
MR BARNARD: Military institution?
MR WESSELS: Yes.
MR BARNARD: At the same time?
MR WESSELS: Yes.
MR BARNARD: No.
MR WESSELS: Did you ever receive money from any institution with the exception of DCC and the CCB?
MR BARNARD: Yes from the SAP.
MR WESSELS: As what?
MR BARNARD: As someone who had provided information for them. I placed organised crime agents for them in places where they couldn't dream of reaching.
MR WESSELS: Since when were you doing this?
MR BARNARD: Over a number of years. Sometimes I would receive information from my sources - say for example Corobrick was robbed and R1.1-million was stolen and two people were shot dead, the robbers would come to me and give me the information and I would take it to Captain Landman and tell him, such and such a source gave me this information and I would take the source out to the place with them, we would show them where the vehicles and the weapons were and where the culprits were sleeping. Brixton would then strike. I have received informer fees of R70,000 in such fashion.
MR WESSELS: Did you do any other work for the Police before you joined the CCB?
MR BARNARD: I cannot recall. It is very difficult for me to attach a time factor to this. If I received such information I would give it to the Police.
MR WESSELS: So it is possible that you received payment from them before that time?
MR BARNARD: Yes it is possible, it is not impossible at all.
MR WESSELS: Did you ever receive any remuneration from the Police in their Counter-insurgency Unit?
MR BARNARD: Yes, I don't know if one could place Vlakplaas in the Counter-insurgency Unit but I received remuneration from them.
MR WESSELS: So you worked for Vlakplaas as well?
MR BARNARD: No I did not. I assisted them. It was when they were down-scaling and we had to focus on crime I took out a printing press with false notes, I took out hijacked goods, robbers, some of them were MK, some of them were not, but when they started operating on the crime level I liaised with them very closely. We established arms caches in which the arms which were there were provided to me by Eugene de Kock. He can confirm this. I liaised with him quite closely and co-operated with him very closely on this basis.
MR WESSELS: Were you also involved in crimes which were committed by Vlakplaas?
MR BARNARD: Yes I was.
MR WESSELS: Which crimes?
MR BARNARD: It certainly must be a crime if you frame someone with an arms cache, because those aren't the persons who are really accountable for the charge. I did that. And then there were attorneys from Pretoria who smuggled with Trust money. I knocked them with a swindle of R20,000 and I gave Vlakplaas members R5,000. Four of them received R5,000 and one received R10,000.
MR WESSELS: You were an expert at framing people Mr Barnard.
MR BARNARD: I wouldn't say that I was an expert, but I have a background in it and I have done it before.
MR WESSELS: You see that's precisely what you are doing here, you are framing Lafras Luitingh and Joe Verster regarding Webster.
MR BARNARD: And you know why I am doing that because I don't want to go to jail, I am so scared of going to jail. I have been in jail for three years. I am in C-Max, the prison.
MR WESSELS: No Mr Barnard you are doing fancy footwork to try and recruit friends in high places for yourself because you know that at some or other point in the future, even if it is the distant future, you will not be compelled to serve out your two life sentences.
MR BARNARD: If you want to cheapen what has taken place between me and the Omar family you can go to hell.
MR WESSELS: Mr Barnard I am not trying to turn it into something cheap.
MR BARNARD: That is precisely what you are doing.
MR WESSELS: It is you who are standing here and it is you who is not explaining everything that you have done in the past.
MR BARNARD: I am telling the truth.
MR WESSELS: If you are here to tell the whole truth to clear your conscience as you have attempted to do so according to your evidence, why don't you clear your conscience? Why don't you tell us about all the other cases of crime in which you were involved during the past? And why don't you disclose the truth so that those who have suffered as a result of your actions can know what really happened?
MR BARNARD: I have testified regarding everything that has happened up to DCC. It stops with DCC.
MR WESSELS: Have you testified regarding everything that you were involved with?
MR BARNARD: I could not because I was not permitted to do so by the Commission.
MR WESSELS: No the Commission did not prevent you from testifying about anything which could have been an offence.
MR BARNARD: No that is not what I am saying Sir. I am saying that I testified yesterday regarding activities with DCC and then the Honourable Chairperson said that we should not take it too far. I cannot think of any crimes that I committed that I have not testified about. If there is something that you know about please tell me, they can take my fingerprints and charge me. I will take the maximum. I will plead guilty and take the maximum. It doesn't really matter, don't you understand, it doesn't matter. Whether I have another life sentence or four more life sentences, it doesn't really matter. I only have one life to spend in prison, not four lives, one life. It doesn't matter to me at all.
MR WESSELS: Then why don't you tell us about all the other things that you were involved in, or is it your memory that fails you?
MR BARNARD: I cannot recall anything else, I don't know what you are referring to. If there is anything else I will admit to it.
MR WESSELS: Well those 20 photographs in the album, tell us about those Mr Barnard.
MR BARNARD: I have explained already, you can either accept it or reject it.
MR COETZEE: With the greatest respect Chairperson, this is no relief that has been offered in terms of confessing to everything that he has done regarding all his crimes. It would not be appropriate. This is not the forum within which a person should come to confess about aspects pertaining to crime or anything else which are not relevant here. What is relevant here is politics. You have permitted us to go further than what we really could, especially with regard to DCC involvement. But what my learned colleague is trying to do here by means of suggestion is actually a blackening of Mr Barnard's name by confronting him with certain things which have not been served before you. It is not acceptable and I really do not think it should be permitted.
MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman Mr Barnard arrives here and he pretends that he is telling the whole truth, that he lied in the past about everything and that now he is telling the truth and, for that reason, we have to believe him.
And it is very important that we have to decide that with the evidence in front of you we have to test now if he is telling the truth or is he lying again. He pretends that he is here to open his heart and tell the truth to reconcile and somebody who wants to do this must tell the whole truth and not just selective truths.
And with respect it is my client's right to see to what an extent he is telling selectively the truth or up to the point where he actually discloses everything, because somebody who tells the truth does not have a problem in mentioning every aspect.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wessels the witness has said look, he's lived a life of crime. For many, many years he has been steeped in it to such an extent that it's twisted his life for years and years and he's said that he just can't remember any other crimes other than what he has told us. I think he did say, he qualified that he, he did say he can't remember any crimes outside of the Police context because there were many in the Police Force where he shot first, and they planted guns etc, but outside of the Police context ...(intervention)
MR WESSELS: Mr Chairperson that is correct, but it has to be tested to see if he is now telling the truth, because a point that he is making now is very simple. He comes here and he says that he's telling the truth. He will sit in jail for the rest of his life. He is telling the truth and we must believe him. But when he is asked about other crimes to test or find out if he is telling selectively the truth, can I just finish my point, then why it is important Sir is that it is my statement that I put to Mr Barnard that he has a motive why he is making these allegations. And to test that motive it is important that we can see to what extent he is making a full disclosure, or is he holding back. Because if he is holding back something then it is very clear that there is a motive.
CHAIRPERSON: But then where do we draw the line Mr Wessels. He's described himself as being the bouncer of all bounces. He's probably bounced hundreds of people in night-clubs. He's pimped prostitutes for years. He's inhaled cocaine and dealt in drugs in probably dozens or hundreds of occasions ...(intervention)
MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman I am not interested in those, in his life would be petty crimes, I am interested in the serious crimes that he's committed. And we want evidence about the serious crimes that he's committed because it is very evident that if he had committed other very serious crimes then he will never come out of prison. Now let him disclose those other serious crimes that he has committed and then we can see how we must judge his evidence in this particular case.
CHAIRPERSON: The serious crime you are calling murder?
MR WESSELS: Murder and similar type of offences. Mr Chairman may I just place on record here. From the first day I objected when there was evidence given in this forum that went outside the ambit of what I perceived to be the aims of the Act. And with all due respect a lot of evidence was admitted and the result has now arisen that the river has broken its banks and we don't know where to stop. That is unfortunate.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Wessels you may persist with the line but there's no point in just carrying on asking whether there is anything else, anything else. If you've got something to put to him to focus his attention on that's fine, but we can't just....
MR WESSELS: Yes Mr Chairman, I appreciate that, and that is why I told you at the beginning I will cross-examine up to a certain stage and then I will ask for the matter to stand down and then we will consider our position to what extent we want to continue with that, and what documents we need to get.
May we perhaps at this stage take the tea adjournment and I can take instructions from my attorney?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll take the tea adjournment now although we might have to wait a few minutes for tea but we'll take it.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
FERDINAND BARNARD: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wessels?
MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman at this stage may I ask that the further cross-examination of Mr Barnard stand over to enable me to try and obtain certain documents and consider my position and take instructions.
CHAIRPERSON: You intimated that yesterday Mr Wessels and we understand that you probably have been taken by surprise with the content of the evidence of Mr Barnard compared to what is contained in the documents. The request is not unreasonable. But what do we do now? Would it be wise to interpose another witness for the time that we have left?
MR WESSELS: I don't have an objection if we do that.
CHAIRPERSON: Anything to that Mr Bizos?
MR BIZOS: I would submit, with respect, since Mr van Zyl is here and he is represented and the evidence of the witness is within a very narrow campus, I would submit that the time would be well spent in disposing of the cross-examination on
behalf of Mr van Zyl. We ourselves Mr Chairman, you will realise from the nature of the evidence given, have a different interest in this witness than the other applicants, and that we submit in accordance with ordinary rules, we should really go last. So I urge the attorney for Mr van Zyl to proceed with his cross-examination of the witness Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Martini?
MR MARTINI: Chairperson as I already indicated on the record, insofar as Mr van Zyl's evidence is at variance with Mr Barnard's evidence, Mr Barnard's evidence is denied, but I still hold the position, at this stage, I am not sure I want to question Mr Barnard depending what happens out of the cross-examination from Mr Bizos, Ms Coleridge, Mr Hockey, possibly Mr Williams, because the way I understand it Mr Williams is not here but he might have an interest on the issue of the bomb. So at this stage I am not in a position to question Mr Barnard and I don't feel I need to at this stage, subject to what might come out in cross-examination by, as I put yesterday, the opponents to the amnesty application Mr van Zyl. Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't think we can force you to cross-examine at this stage, but are you sure there's nothing you would like to put to him now that's going to be disputed other than your general statement?
MR MARTINI: At this stage I have nothing to put to Mr Barnard Chairperson, from what I have heard. I will argue at this point in time on the evidence of Mr Barnard. However, it all depends what comes out from the cross-examination by the other parties. Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Is there anybody else at this stage who I haven't asked, Mr Stipp, whether you have any questions you would like to put at this stage?
MR STIPP: Mr Chairman not at this stage.
CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Hockey?
MR HOCKEY: I am in the same position Mr Chairman.
MR H DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman at this stage there is only one question I would put if no-one else is going to put anything. There is one aspect that I would like to clarify with Mr Barnard at this point, so if there are no objections there are just one or two questions that I will put to Mr Barnard.
CHAIRPERSON: Certainly Mr du Plessis.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR H DU PLESSIS: Mr Barnard you testified this morning that Joe Verster came to sit next to you and said that you must "fuck up the General", is that correct?
MR BARNARD: Yes that is correct.
MR H DU PLESSIS: Did Mr Verster give you any explanation about why he had to "fuck up" the General?
MR BARNARD: No Sir. I was surprised. Joe Verster and I do not sit, agree with many things and over a period of time, especially after they incriminated me during the post mortem inquest of Dr Webster two weeks before the beginning of the proceedings here, after three years I received a message from Joe Verster in the prison via one of my visitors, a former Koevoet member, that he sends his regards, he has got a lot of respect for me and the way in which I handled myself. And it was very surprising that first of all he made contact in such a way. And then I met Calla Botha and I felt sorry for Joe in his evidence because there is something in me that does not want to make me sell other people out and want me to make people go to prison. And I thought to make it a bit easier for him I told Mr Botha to give Mr Verster a message that I did not want him to testify here and keep this thing
in the back of his mind that they he is taking a certain direction with his evidence and later I come and say no Verster gave the instruction. That's how I felt about it at that stage. Then I sent the message that I will not answer questions concerning Webster. I will tell this Commission to go to hell. And that was my words. But then Mr Botha came back to me and he was a bit unhappy about Joe and he said you must do what you want you. Then I left it. And I said I am not going to turn around now and that did not force me to continue, I would have done it as stated before. The next day, that was still during the first sitting there was a tea-break, or lunch break where I was not immediately removed from the hall, then Joe Verster walked in, I was sitting here with the guards guarding me, then he came to sit next to me, and he asked me "how are you?". I said "no alright, and you?". And he said "fine". And he said things looked difficult and he said good luck, and he told me then he received my message, he thought about it and that's how I experienced it, he received my message and I said well this is my attitude, I am not going to tell them that you gave the instruction. I will not testify about Webster at all. This Commission must go to hell. And that's how I felt about it. Then he thought that he could manipulate me further and he patted me on the back and he told me to "fuck up the General". And at that stage the people walked in. I was surprised. I did not know what to say to him. I did not answer him, I just looked at him like that. But I did mention it to General Webb because he sat next to me. And I spoke to him and I said to him "General I never received an instruction from you concerning the Webster case", and I also tested him and he said "but I never gave that instruction", and that was his attitude. He was very shocked, and I said that I will not say it because I got the instruction from Joe.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR H DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: The only other, we have got two options open to us now. We can adjourn until Monday morning or else the only other option would be to lead the evidence-in-chief of Mr Calla Botha, but I don't know whether that will have any effect on the further cross-examination of Mr Barnard. I think if we did that I don't know whether the context of what Mr Botha might say might have an effect on the further cross-examination of Mr Barnard.
Mr Wessels will you be ready by Monday to continue with your cross-examination?
MR WESSELS: That is extremely unlikely Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: We should interpose?
MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman I am concerned about my learned colleague Mr Wessels' response that it's highly unlikely. This evidence was given the day before yesterday, the vital evidence, in relation to his client. There is a weekend. His client says I am denying that this has happened. Senior members of our profession work within weekends in the middle of a trial. I don't want to prescribe to my learned friend how he should conduct his case. I am told by Mr Kahanovitz juniors work as well. He corrects it, only juniors work during the weekends, so he says with some justification I may say. But Mr Chairman I would urge my learned friend, one would have thought that Mr Verster would, whatever business or activity he may be involved in, would have come here a couple of days ago. He no doubt will make himself available for my learned friend during the weekend, and I would urge that he tries to finish his cross-examination of this witness, we will continue with the witness on Monday, because for a person in his position Mr Chairman to be sitting here, listen to evidence, being influenced or uninfluenced by what is happening isn't fair, and I would urge that the Committee appeal to my learned friend to proceed and complete his cross-examination of the witness. Thank you Mr Chairman.
MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman it seems that other than Mr Bizos I have other work too, but that's not the point. It's not that I'm not going to work, whether I am going to work it is a matter of obtaining documentation to which I do not have access to. I don't have a big infrastructure supporting me and my attorney to get all the documents. I don't have the documents that I need to look at. It's not a question of whether - I can leave the documents or prepare it all depends when I am going to get the documents that I require to continue with the cross-examination.
To deal with that further. Mr Verster is not presently in the country so I can't get him here.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it possible for the Commission to assist in acquiring of documents, if they are official documents, judgments, records, etc?
MR WESSELS: I certainly will and I will discuss that with my learned friend.
CHAIRPERSON: That that might expedite that because we have access to a number of official documents.
MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson just from the Commission's side we want to expedite this matter and we will render our assistance in this regard.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Wessels I agree with what Mr Bizos has said because we, as you know, as a Commission are pressed for time and we would certainly appreciate it if the cross-examination could be recommenced on Monday.
MR WESSELS: I have a full understanding for that and I will do my utmost to try and proceed as soon as I can Mr Chairman.
MR VAN ECK: Chairperson if I may come in regarding Botha's position. His name has been mentioned quite regularly during cross-examination and I am prepared to allow his evidence to stand down until Mr Barnard's cross-examination has been concluded.
CHAIRPERSON: So what is your attitude about interposing him in now at this stage, what would your attitude be?
MR VAN ECK: My attitude Mr Chairman is not to put him in today. My understanding is that the Commission is going to adjourn within an hour's time.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes we are sitting until one o'clock today.
MR VAN ECK: Ja, my attitude is it would be senseless to start with his evidence today, maybe stand it down again, his evidence-in-chief, and carry on with it at a later stage whilst Mr Barnard is still under cross-examination, I don't think that's an ideal situation at all.
MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson there is one other factor that you have to take into account, Mr Williams would also like to hear the evidence of Calla Botha, and we have made an undertaking that we will start on Monday with Mr Botha's evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Ms Coleridge.
MR LAX: Would your client be willing to start on Monday if, for example, Mr Wessels can't go on?
MR VAN ECK: Well the position would be still the same Mr Chairman, but if Mr Williams is here and we can save time by that, that can be done.
CHAIRPERSON: And sorry Ms Coleridge, I forgot to ask you, do you have any cross-examination at this stage of Mr Barnard?
MS COLERIDGE: No thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Well it looks like we've come to a dead-end for today at any event. But we will resume on Monday. Once again Mr Wessels if we could start with the cross-examination of Mr Barnard, that would be the best by far option.
Yes I think if you can liaise with Ms Coleridge and let them know what documentation you want and hopefully they will be able to assist you.
MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman if Mr Wessels requires documents in relation to the Webster inquest we may be able to assist him Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Mr Bizos, that's much appreciated.
Yes unfortunately we won't be able to carry on today. We've lost some time but for understandable reasons. I have just been reminded now by my colleague Mr Lax that we were informed that Correctional Services, who transport Mr Barnard to and fro, have made an arrangement for him, it's no longer necessary for him to leave at quarter to four as it was in the past. They have made that arrangement and also they can start earlier. Now I know the objection to starting at nine o'clock but is it possible, perhaps, for next week to make an arrangement where we can sit longer days like starting at nine and hitting through to five-ish. I know that you've got practices to run and other business to do but if you could arrange your affairs for the one week our time is running out, we'd like to get as far as possible with this hearing. We still have the evidence of a couple of witnesses who may take some time as well. So we are going to struggle to finish next week.
We will adjourn to next Monday and try to start at half-past nine on Monday, because they have to set up. The first day is always the set-up day but after that if we could start at nine in the mornings it would be better.
We will adjourn now until next Monday, 2nd of October at 9H30 at this venue. I am told that it is going to be in this room on Monday. We will adjourn until then. Thank you very much.