Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-09-29

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.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

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?

GEORGE 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.

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?

FERDINAND 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?

FERDINAND 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?