Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-11-18

MR MARTINI: Now he went later - in answer to Mr Wessels, he said:  "Mr Wessels, 24 years".  ... triple convicted murderer.  Drug addict.  Alcoholic.  A person who deceived.  And let's stop there.  He has deceived Judges, he has deceived his own attorney, and I would venture to suggest he might have deceived certain members of the public too when he testified.  And it's my submission, this is not a stupid man, this is a very intelligent man who has been sitting in solitary confinement, plotting.  But let's go further.  A man who had no problem in describing how he bashed a Mr Francis's brains in that the brain exploded.
	A man who filed an application with this Committee and says to this Committee: "Hang on, up until this stage that my applications was filed, I have lied.  I've lied for 24 years of my life.  I've lied in every court.  I've lied to this Committee.  I've deceived my own attorney, because he's filed my application and what I've put in there are lies.  I deceived Judge Stegman."  What weight could any person of logic, intelligence and reason, place on this man's evidence?  
	It doesn't stop there Chairperson, because he has a motive.  What does he say?  "Mr van Zyl gave me 10 years."  He has a motive to lie against Mr van Zyl.  Very important.  And it's my submission Chairperson, to go further, that he lied at these hearings.  And I'll show as well - I don't believe I need to go as far as showing how improbable his version is.  He has done his own job, he has told this Committee: "I've lied everywhere".  
	Now, I'm criticised by my colleagues for not cross-examining him.  There's a reason.  I would not dignify that man with cross-examination, because all you'll get out of his mouth are lies.  How do you cross-examine a man who says to you: "I've lied for 24 years.  I've done crime every day of my life.  I've lied to this Committee.  I've lied to everybody"?  When do you believe you're going to get an honest answer out of this man?  Never, Chairperson, never.
	Now let's touch - in essence, the discrepancy between Mr van Zyl's evidence and Mr Barnard's evidence which was placed on record by myself and it was disputed, and on this instance you will recall Mr Bizos had placed on record that they reserved the right to possibly recall Mr van Zyl.  Mr van Zyl was never called.  Mr Barnard's version was never put to Mr van Zyl.  He sat here when Mr van Zyl gave evidence, his counsel sat here ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But I mean, Mr Barnard's version only came to life after Mr van Zyl testified.  On Mr Barnard's own version he said that he had this revelation during the course of these proceedings ...(intervention)

MR MARTINI: No, no, that was after van Zyl had testified.  Yes, I agree with you Chairperson, yes he changed his mind, but his version was never put to Mr van Zyl.  Mr Bizos said they wanted to recall Mr van Zyl.  They never did.

GEORGE BIZOS: ...(inaudible - no microphone) permission for Mr van Zyl to go and what we said at the time was that he may be required to give further evidence.  That's all that we said, Mr Chairman.  And we will address you in due course, as to has a duty to call evidence in this case.  So that we can ...

CHAIRPERSON: We know for a fact that he wasn't recalled and that it was mentioned that he may be required.

MR LAX: But just in a nutshell, your position is that the man is an out and out liar, there was no point in cross-examining him, because you wouldn't have got anything else but lies and therefore you didn't.

MR MARTINI: One hundred percent, but I'm going further and I'm saying this Committee cannot place a tittle of weight on his evidence.  I mean it's not supported by the applicants.  If the Committee accepts his evidence, does the Committee want to give a message to the outside world that we accept the evidence of self-confessed liars, convicted criminals, drug addicts ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry, with the greatest of respect, we have had hundreds of self-confessed liars come before this Committee and many of them have received amnesty, some haven't.  The question has been, have they explained themselves?  Have they explained why they lied?  That's really the crucial issue.  You'll surely concede.  But just because someone's a self-confessed liar it doesn't mean they're not telling the truth.

MR MARTINI: If he doesn't have a motive.

MR LAX: Well even if he does have a motive, the question is you weigh it all up in the balance.

MR MARTINI: But Mr Lax, you're missing my point, because in order for the Committee to believe Barnard, you have to reject Van Zyl.

CHAIRPERSON: But then one - yes, because look Mr van Zyl's also admitted to telling lies, committing perjury in certain statements he's made, etcetera.

MR MARTINI: Chairperson, he said - we'll get to that, he said he lied in the Section 29.  Now one must understand Section 29 statements, they're draconian legislation which ...(intervention)

MR LAX: You can rest assured we are very familiar with Section 29 statements.

CHAIRPERSON: But just on this question, Mr Martini, we here what you say, Mr Barnard hasn't got a good track record, there's no doubt about that and I don't think that's in issue, but he's come and he's given a version and he's explained why he's turned and why he's now decided to make a clean breast of things.  Now one's got to take a look at that.  Then we've got two conflicting versions between - relating to questions of fact, relating to certain details, particularly in the Omar incident.  Then we get for instance, the question of the Makarov pistol, now we've got two different versions, one from Mr van Zyl, one from Mr Barnard.  We've got two conflicting version as to why Mr Barnard was involved in that operation, one from Mr van Zyl who says he was there just to monitor and the other from Mr Barnard who said no, he was there to kill.  Two split versions on fact.  Now are you saying well, because of his bad track record, because of his being a self-confessed liar, a criminal, etcetera, we don't have to even go beyond that?  Because if one then starts looking at probabilities, or even possibilities if you want to go down that far, let's just take the question of the Makarov gun, what's more probable or possible?  That Mr van Zyl phoned Peaches and said: "Peaches, please get rid of that gun"?  And the silencer ...  What's more probably, that he was brought in to monitor and paid R7 000 to monitor, to sit in a motor car and look?  That sort of thing.  What I'm saying, are you saying we needn't get down to doing that exercise of determining who is giving the correct version?