Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-09-28

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.   Good morning everybody.  We will now proceed with the evidence of Mr Barnard.

FERDINAND BARNARD: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Coetzee?

MR COETZEE: (Cont)
	Thank you Mr Chairman.  
	Mr Barnard,  I would just like to take you back to the point of your evidence yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: Just before you proceed, I see Mr Wessels is not here.  Oh, is he there?  Sorry Mr Wessels, I didn't notice you there, okay.  Sorry, you may proceed.

MR COETZEE: Very well, Mr Barnard,  yesterday you referred to your tasking with regard to Dr Webster and you also referred to Jay Naidoo, who was also assigned to you, the name of Jay Naidoo.  Can you just explain to the Committee what the situation was and what you did with regard to Jay Naidoo?

FERDINAND BARNARD: Chairperson, I spent some time on Mr Naidoo's case, but not as much time as I spent on the Webster case, seeing as it was clearly stipulated to me that the chief priority at that point was David Webster, but what I did do and I am aware that I stated in a Section 29 affidavit that I followed Mr Naidoo to an address situated in Yeoville, Johannesburg, that is not the truth.
	I obtained information of an address, it was 93 Hopkins Street, Yeoville.  I went to reconnoitre the address, I observed the layout of the house, I wanted to see if there were any vehicles there.  There was a block of flats near the house and if one went via the flats, one could view directly the situation of the house.  I saw a yellow Ford Escort vehicle with the old Port Elizabeth registration number.  I took the number down and at a certain point, subsequently I gave this information to Lafras Luitingh.
	There was no further task which was assigned to me in this regard, and I kept myself busy with the Webster case.

MR COETZEE: Mr Barnard, while we are on the Webster case, could we just return to that.  After the Webster incident, during the Harms Commission and later during the formal post mortem inquest regarding Dr Webster's death, various proceedings took place, in which you were involved.  If you could possibly just explain the nature of this to the Committee and if you could explain your conduct during the two judicial inquiries?

FERDINAND BARNARD: I didn't want to speak the truth with regard to any of the projects in which I had been involved.  It was clear to me that I functioned in a completely different way and that I was also handled as such by the CCB.  Because I have had liaison with Calla Botha and Slang van Zyl, they told me on a regular basis what was going on in their cell structure, what the pro forma was according to the formulation of matters, and it was a very rigid system.
	My experience, however, was different.  If I were to make amnesty applications with regard to this, it would mean that I would be turning against those in the system, such as Joe Verster and others, and I wouldn't have any backup.  I would be standing completely alone, if they came to testify and they testified against me.  All they would really have to do is to deny everything, and then I would be in hot water, left all by myself.
	So I told lies to the Harms Commission and I lied during the post mortem inquest into the death of David Webster and at a certain stage, Joe Verster, after the appointment of the Harms Commission, sent a message to me via Lafras Luitingh and Luitingh told me that Joe had said that my attitude had to be tested, and that if my attitude appeared to be suitable, Joe Verster would request a meeting with me.
	My attitude was favourable, I decided to speak to him, and we had a meeting a few days later in the Braamfontein Protea Hotel.  Upon my arrival in the hotel, it was only Mr Verster who was in the particular room number which was given to me.  We spoke for a while.  He asked me, I could see that he was uncomfortable, perhaps he thought that I was bugging him or that he was bugging me.  Things weren't that easy, but ultimately the discussion boiled down to Mr Verster asking me how much detail the South African Police had available, during my interrogation, how much they knew about the CCB, the activities of the CCB, what was already disclosed, what I had disclosed.
	I made certain admissions to him in this regard, which were correct, according to my summation of it.  Then Mr Verster said to me, he called me closer, because we stood some distance away from each other in the room, he called me closer and turned up the volume of the television in the room, he took a document out of his briefcase, he called me over and indicated to me with his finger on the document, without speaking.  I read the document, but I cannot recall specifically whether it was an affidavit, but I suspect according to my recollection, that it had to do with a document that Mr Verster would present to the Harms Commission and the passage that he pointed out to me was about his denial of any involvement or knowledge with regard to the Webster incident.  I nodded my head and then he said to me, that is my attitude, and then I left subsequently.

MR COETZEE: This was during the Harms Commission and later during the post mortem inquest, these two basically overlapped?  Did you also assume the same viewpoint of denial?

FERDINAND BARNARD: Yes, that is correct.  I consistently denied that I had any knowledge of or involvement in the Webster incident.  I had a tactic of distance, which started when I was locked up under Section 29.  I was a former policeman and detective and I had investigated serious crimes.  I realised when the interrogation was underway, while I was in isolation under Section 29, that I would have to distance myself from the CCB as far as I possibly could.
	As things went by, I gave what I thought was a credible explanation which was of course, a fabrication, and what I said was that the CCB had made use of my services, but that during the Webster incident, I was no longer a member of the CCB, I used the problems with McQuillan and the incident to which has been referred, which took place at the Sandton Security Branch with Col Viktor and I conveyed this to the Investigating Team, in order to distance myself from the CCB.  It was the most logical step for me, it suited me.
	At a certain stage, as things developed into the future, it also suited the CCB that I had distanced myself from them, but that technique of distancing myself, no longer suits me today, because it was also not the truth.

MR COETZEE: Mr Barnard, if we could proceed to the next project in which you were involved, and that would be the one matter for which you had requested amnesty, and it is the Omar Project.
	If you could explain to the Honourable Committee, how you became involved and what you did and what your instructions were in this regard.