Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-09-29

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?

FERDINAND BARNARD: I recall it, yes.

MR WESSELS: Do you recall the evidence before Judge Els?

FERDINAND 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?