Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-11-19

MR MARTINI: 2681 Chairperson.  Chairperson, just while we're dealing with Mr Barnard, his evidence, it was raised by his counsel yesterday, what is significant about his evidence-in-chief - oh I have found it Chairperson, where he stayed at the Woodstock.  Well, we can look at page 2675, he says
"I came to Cape Town for a second time.  Once again I booked into the Inn on the Square",
so we can assume that evidence - and the second occasion, Inn on the Square.  Then if you got to page 2678 Chairperson, that's where it flows from the third incident where he actually went out and he says he saw somebody, he observed Mr Omar and that he couldn't shoot him because he was accompanied by a female, we don't know a wife, or just a female and at page 2678:
"I think he was on leave",
he's talking about van Zyl,
"At that stage I was staying in the Woodstock Holiday Inn.  If I recall correctly it was at the time that Anton Lubowski was shot dead because I had the number of a holiday flat where I could contact Slang van Zyl.  I phoned him early that morning, because throughout the night I had visited night clubs and I walked in, switched on the TV and on the 6 o'clock news I saw Anton Lubowski had been assassinated.  I phoned van Zyl and told him to switch on his TV.  He undertook to come see me later that morning."
So now he's staying at the Woodstock.  Nowhere in this evidence does he tell us how he retrieved the gun on the third occasion.  Now what is also significant of Mr Barnard's evidence is the way he has testified, nowhere in this evidence will you find that Mr Barnard says Mr van Zyl instructed him to kill Minister Omar.  His counsel raised it.  All - he uses the words, he says he met van Zyl, he says:  "I was requested..."  We don't know by whom.  Assumptions can be made that its from van Zyl but one would expect if this man is being honest, to sit down and say to this Committee:  "I met on that date, van Zyl told me to do this, he wanted me to kill" and if you analyse his evidence, he then says he travels with Peaches and van Zyl to Minister Omar's house, this is after the alleged handing over of the Makarov and he says:
"From then on I knew I was tasked with the murder of Minister Omar."
That's in his own mind and he repeats that in cross-examination by Mr Bizos.  Nowhere - Mr Bizos asked him the question, he doesn't answer, he just says:  "I knew I was tasked with the murder".  Now why is that important, Chairperson?  It's very important because I submit that's a total fabrication.  What has Mr Barnard done?  Mr Barnard has led the evidence clearly of monitoring, because it ties in, he's been there, he's been monitoring and he adds in the words:  "and I was to kill him".  That's how he's altered his version.
	Now also of importance is notwithstanding my submission yesterday as to why Mr Barnard's evidence should not be accepted, how does the Committee deal with the following problem?  Mr Barnard in his application to the Committee files an under oath statement setting out the deeds for which he applies for amnesty and the grounds and he supports Mr van Zyl 100%.  He in fact refers to Mr van Zyl's application and to the paragraphs and confirms them.  Now the victims would want the Committee to find well, he's changed his mind, ignore that application he made to the Committee for amnesty, where he does a complete about turn, so the relevance of that in assisting the Committee is simply another factor as to why you have to reject ...(indistinct).  There's not one bit of evidence, Chairperson, which corroborates Mr Barnard's testimony, so leaving aside my arguments of whatever the man might be and why you shouldn't believe him, for those reasons, on his own evidence, the way it was presented, on his own contradiction, he shouldn't be accepted, his evidence should never be accepted and cannot be accepted, it's my submission.
	Chairperson just, I would like to put on record, we have been pressurised in replying.  I've made notes  opposite every page on Mr Bizos's answers and I'm finding it extremely difficult to deal with all these issues in the short time that we do have and I don't really know how to deal with this problem unless we be afforded the opportunity to reply to these Heads. Chairperson, this is an important matter.  It's an important matter for the applicant, who I represent, I'm not speaking for the other applicants, they have their own legal representatives.  I'm not here able to judge as to whether this Committee is satisfied with answers they received or argument raised.  We got these Heads, I certainly got them in the afternoon, on Wednesday.  I've had basically a day which its taken me to make my notes, but I could go on for another four hours, going through point by point, unless the Committee feels ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: If you want to respond then in writing, when could you do it by?  We don't want to be unduly delayed because we're getting very close to the end of our process.

MR MARTINI: I appreciate that Chairperson.  The only reason I raised it, you know I wouldn't want a long time, is Mr Bizos ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It would clearly only be in response.

MR MARTINI: No, only in response.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't want new issues and then have to give somebody else a ...

MR MARTINI: No, no, no, Chairperson, it would only be to deal more comprehensively with this, a reply to not even I would say Bundle B, I mean they do ask that Bundle B be referred to in Bundle A, where they highlight various parts of evidence, which is quite an enormous task.  Now it is difficult, not to raise new issues, but to reply to let's call it Bundle A.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we know that normally there's a chance to reply to any argument and we also know that you haven't been given a great deal of time to do that and that you prepared your Heads before seeing the others, so we don't want anyone to leave here feeling that they've been prejudiced in any way, so if you want to submit written replies - do you have any problem with that?  As long as it can be done reasonably quickly and as long as it's restricted to a reply.

MR MARTINI: Chairperson, I think Ms Coleridge will agree, I filed my Heads rather early, I think on the 1st of November.  It's not my intention to delay it's just to ensure ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, that ...

MR MARTINI: And I appreciate only to reply to let's call it Bundle A.  I don't think Bundle B needs a reply because that deals mainly with evidence and that can be incorporated because Mr Bizos has also given us references now to Bundle B, but the reason why I raise it now is before lunch Mr Bizos did raise and said there's been a suggestion that a written reply be handed in and you opposed it, but I certainly do not, I'm not trying to be difficult with the Committee, but appreciate the difficulty I think every applicant has here trying to rush through this.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we wouldn't have, subject to what Mr Bizos or Mr Hockey might say, but our intention was to give you an opportunity to reply.

MR MARTINI: Sure Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And a reasonable opportunity to reply.  We thought maybe these two days, that we would have had sufficient time, it's turned out that there hasn't been, so we don't want anybody to leave here feeling he's been prejudiced, he hasn't been given a proper opportunity, etc, etc, so if you want to reply by the end of the month, can you do that?

MR MARTINI: Sure Chairperson.  Chairperson ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - mike not on)