Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-13

MR VAN ZYL: No, what I said was that Mr Barnard had offered his services to me as a result of his intelligence contacts he had and that he offered me his services because he was related to the CCB in an inactive basis until he was going to work outside the country the next year.  He didn't come to me and say to me "Listen, I'm going to work for you and you must pay me R5 000 a month", or can I do it, that was not the arrangement.

UNKNOWN: No, what happened Mr van Zyl, was that Mr Barnard wanted to work for the CCB, Mr Verster did not want to give him a job after his probation period expired, correct?

MR VAN ZYL: I cannot give evidence regarding this, I think you'll have to ask Mr Barnard who he worked for in the CCB, other than myself or Mr Verster.

UNKNOWN: Mr Barnard therefore didn't have a proper income.

MR VAN ZYL: I also cannot give evidence relating to this.

CHAIRPERSON: Just one small point.  Why in this particular incident did you not make use of cut-off people?  Did you yourself have to go to the garden and hang this foetus and put the nails in, whereas we've heard in relation to the Omar project, that you were very particular about using cut-off people, whereas here you, although it wasn't, from what I gather, your own project, but you an operative were being used directly.

MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, I also used Peaches' services that particular evening and I think it's as a result of the fact - well, I think it is because it was a low risk project that I received the instruction to do it myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kahanovitz.

UNKNOWN: Mr van Zyl, Mr Barnard made a first statement while he was in detention on the 22nd of November 1989, okay.  He then made a second statement on the 6th of December 1989, and that statement starts at page 82 of bundle B.  What he says in that second statement is that he wishes to come clean about certain untruths that were contained in the first statement and he then goes on to say the following at page 93, about your and his involvement in this project.  In the middle of the page he says that you asked him to come to Cape Town to hang up this monkey foetus, that you went - that you and he and a Coloured person went at 2 o'clock in the morning to Bishops Court to hang up the monkey foetus, is that correct?

MR VAN ZYL: That is not factually precisely correct.  At that stage Ferdie was already down in Cape Town, he did not accompany me to Cape Town, that I did ask him and that Peaches was involved and another person who was involved, an unknown person, that is correct.

UNKNOWN: Didn't Staal Burger also come down to Cape Town for this project?

MR VAN ZYL: He was supposed to come but he did not come.

UNKNOWN: Then he says - and now he's referring to his earlier statement, he says
"The information regarding the five steps that would have been followed that I mentioned in my first statement, I heard from Slang and not from Dirk.  The identity kit of Dirk that I set up was false and such a person does not exist in the organisation.  Once again I did it to protect Slang."
Now he goes on to say:
"Slang knew nothing about the first two steps of said five point plan but he mentioned to me that a hyena would the next step and that Trevor Tutu would be killed by means of a witch-doctor poisoning.  It was only mentioned to him and as was the case with the first two steps, he would not be involved in the last two steps.  I suspect that Staal unlawfully informed him about this, seeing as it was not the policy of the organisation to inform a person so completely."
So, just let's summarise.  He said that he lied in his earlier statement in order to protect you, you can't comment on that.  He says however that you told him about a five point project of which the hanging of the monkey foetus was the third step.  The fourth step would be the hyena and the fifth step would be to poison Trevor Tutu.  Now is that true?

MR VAN ZYL: It's news to me, it's the first time I hear this.

UNKNOWN: It can't be the first time that you heard it, because ...(intervention)

MR VAN ZYL: Believe me when I tell you it's the first time that I hear about the hyena and Trevor Tutu that had to be poisoned etcetera.  It's absolute news to me.

UNKNOWN: Weren't you here during the proceedings when we ran for a week last time?

MR VAN ZYL: I was.

UNKNOWN: But Joe Verster was cross-examined on this, so you must have heard about it.

MR VAN ZYL: Not that I can remember, not regarding the hyena and Trevor Tutu.

UNKNOWN: So if Ferdi Barnard says you told him about a five point plan, he's lying.

MR VAN ZYL: Absolutely.

UNKNOWN: Can you think of any good reason why Ferdi Barnard would make this up?

MR VAN ZYL: Sir, you know the circumstances under which Section 29 statements are made and I believe that you have defended many people in the past, where you proved that Section 29 statements were made under force and it's probably for the same reason that he made such untruths in his statement, but I in my life have never prejudiced Ferdi or harmed him or caused him to be vindictive towards me.  So I cannot tell you he had a good reason to do it, other than it being a lie.

UNKNOWN: Isn't it so that such a plan indeed existed and that the case against Dr Wouter Basson is proceeding on the basis that there is indeed evidence about the existence of this plan?  It's not something that Mr Barnard invented.

MR VAN ZYL: No, I cannot comment on what the reason is for the charge against Dr Basson regarding the monkey.  I'm telling you that I do not know of any five point plan regarding this project.  I was not involved in the previous plans and also not the later plans, all that was asked of me is what I've given evidence to and if Mr Barnard has further knowledge, then it is his right to give evidence regarding this.

UNKNOWN: You'll agree with me Mr Barnard would need to have a fantastic imagination to have invented this concept of the hyena and the poisoning of Trevor Tutu.

MR VAN ZYL: I don't think he is the only one with such an imagination.

UNKNOWN: Would you not agree with me that the five point plan makes more sense than that hanging of the monkey foetus, seen in isolation?  Wasn't it the plan that the - it was hoped that when Mr Tutu, Trevor Tutu was murdered, the police investigation would reveal that black people with traditional beliefs had been targeting Tutu and then the blame for what had happened to him could be placed on these people and not on the State?

MR MARTINI: Mr Chairperson, it's another unfair question, he asked my client "Wasn't this the plan"?  My client has told this Commission, he says he has no knowledge of a five point plan.

CHAIRPERSON: How relevant to us is his opinion?  Can't you deal with this in argument?

UNKNOWN: Well it's relevant in the sense that at the end of the day we're going to argue that it wasn't a single incident in isolation and we're also going to argue that he's not telling the truth about his knowledge of the existence of the five point plan and we're going to argue that it's a far more logical and plausible inference to be drawn that such plan existed, and I'm putting to him the reason why we're going to say that, for his comment.

MR MARTINI: But he's testified Mr Chairperson, he says "I have no knowledge of a five point plan", so how can you ask him to express an opinion on a plan which he already says "I have not knowledge of"?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you're asking him to express an opinion on something that he says he's got no knowledge of.  It's just in relation to this particular question, I'm not preventing you from arguing ...(intervention)