From: mark@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african
Subject: Re: C Times headline and comments
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:11:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: uctvax.1992Nov18.161151.203293
Organization: University of Cape Town

8934959@sunvax.sun.ac.za writes:
> ccfj@hippo.ru.ac.za (F. Jacot Guillarmod) writes:
>> 8934959@sunvax.sun.ac.za writes:
>> 
>>>The headline in today's Cape Times, written in massive letters is:
>> 
>>>                      SADF  LIED!
>> 
>>>So what's new?
>> 
>> The fact that a judicial commission of enquiry, appointed by the state,
>> obtained this evidence from a witness brought before it by the S.A.
>> police?  That's new, and vaguely encouraging.  Of course, the proof of
>> the pudding is if something is done about it...

> The only point I was trying to make is that, as anyone who has any knowledge
> of the SADF can tell you, the SADF makes quite a habit of lying. I am just
> glad that at long last they have been "caught out", and there's no denying
> this one.
> 
> I was also highly amused to see the shocked response from the politicians.
> They all seemed so hurt that Goldstone had not given them an advance warning 
> so that they could prepare their excuses.

Your points are taken.  

It appears to me however that the easy way out of the Ferdi Barnard 
scandal for Minister Roelf Meyer would have been to say that when he 
discovered this criminal's involvement, he ordered that Ferdi be 
dismissed or whatever.  This appears to be his only implication (to
date) in the affair.  

Instead he says that Ferdi "probably" wasn't even employed, rather he was 
a "source", and that the order to terminate his relationship did not come 
from him (someone incorrectly "forged" or put his name to a document to 
"add authority" to the order).  This "forging" business only complicates
the matter, and lends no credibility to his case.

The actual "SADF LIED" will be argued no doubt by the SADF as a 
technicality.  The lie occurred a few weeks ago at the Inquest into
the murder of David Webster, when Lieutenant-General Badenhorst claimed
that Barnard had never been employed by Millitary Intelligence.
He will probably claim that he meant that Barnard was never employed 
during the period under examination by the Inquest; Goldstone's 
documents only seem to refer to a later period: May - December 1991.
Alternatively he will stick to Meyer's account that Barnard was a
"source" not an "employee".

The main reason for the bumbling responses from the government is
probably not knowing how to deal with the matter, arising from a
lack of general political strategy at the moment.  Hence on TV last
night Meyer claimed to have summonsed Badenhorst to his office
yesterday to explain the Ferdi Barnard affair, yet he could give no
proper account of Badenhorst's explanation.  Meyer instead said
"he probably told me that Barnard was not employed by MI".

The government is also probably hamstrung by serious divisions within
their ranks.  These divisions are manifesting themselves in the
conflict between various security forces.  eg the SAP "spilt the
beans" to Goldstone on the Barnard-Millitary Intelligence scandal.
After the cabinet meeting today they will probably close ranks and
present a more coherent (if not accurate) account in order to 
contain the damage.

Mark Ramsden