Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-11-18

MR MARTINI: Chairperson, I was going to get there, because even on the probabilities and on his version you can't accept his version.  But let's start with the Makarov pistol.  What does Mr Barnard say?  Now let's start at the beginning with the inconsistencies.  His first statement in Section 29, which I don't place much weight on, because I appreciate those statements are under duress and there's a purpose in making those statements.  And I submit one has to have reference as to what was happening at the time, people were being arrested, weren't sure if the government was going to assist them, what was going to happen, what do we say, what don't we say?
	But if we take his statement in November, what does he say?  He talks about Dirk.  Nowhere in his statement that I could find, does he say he was actually hired to kill Mr Omar.  What he says in his first statement is in his second statement, where he identifies Mr van Zyl, and that's one question I asked Mr Barnard, I said: "So when you made your second statement in December '89, you wanted to expose Mr van Zyl", and he says: "Yes".   He doesn't alter that statement.  If you read it carefully, Chairperson, in bundle B I think it is, he says: "Mr van Zyl, (1) offered him R50 000 to eliminate Minister Omar", but then he says he was joking and he says he would never do it.  So now in December he hasn't altered the version, he hasn't come and said: "Nonsense, Mr van Zyl hired me to kill Minister Omar".  He says Mr van Zyl was testing him.  Now why is it improbable?  The budget was R15 000, where was Mr van Zyl going to get R50 000 from?

MR LAX: The budget was R30 000.

MR MARTINI: Not for Omar.

MR LAX: And R35 000 in another instance - no, hang on that's right.  I beg your pardon.

MR MARTINI: R30 000 was for ...

MR LAX: Yes, yes, that's fine.

MR MARTINI: Oh sorry, Chairperson.  Just to get back to my train of thought ...

MR LAX: You were saying the budget was R15 000 for Omar.

MR MARTINI: Not R50 000.  But Mr Barnard himself says he was joking in that statement.  Now, in his evidence I have been unable to find anywhere where he says "I was instructed to murder Minister Omar".   What he does say is: "From then on I knew I had to murder Minister Omar."  Now, what is this man doing?  It's the easiest thing to change his version.  If you follow his version, it is in line with monitoring.  Which Mr van Zyl says he hired him because he wasn't sure what Peaches was getting up to and he wanted Barnard to go and maybe revert to Mr van Zyl and say why this project couldn't be done, what is Peaches getting up to.
	Now to answer Mr Lax's question of the R7 000.  He was not paid R7 000, that's Mr Barnard's own evidence.  He said he was given R7 000 to cover his costs, air tickets to Cape Town three times.  Hotel accommodation at the Inn.  He wasn't paid R7 000, it was to reimburse him.  If you'll recall the evidence.  And that's Mr Barnard's evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but it cost R7 000 to involve him in the operation.

MR MARTINI: Conceded, Chairperson, but not to kill the Minister.
	Now let's look at the further improbabilities.  Mr Barnard says Mr ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry, just in summary, because you've been beating round the bush here, what is the probability you're referring us to, just so I'm clear on it?

MR MARTINI: His version is totally improbable that he was hired to kill Minister Omar.

MR LAX: Because he wasn't paid anything?

MR MARTINI: Not because he wasn't - if you'll allow me to elaborate I'm going to submit he was not even given the gun.  The only version is that he had to monitor.  Judge Els accepted Mr van Zyl's evidence.  A Judge in a trial has accepted Mr van Zyl's evidence.  What did His Lordship Judge Els find?   He found Mr van Zyl's evidence acceptable.  And what did he find about Barnard?  He says Barnard himself conceded that he was part of a conspiracy to murder.  That related to the monitoring, because the Judge asked him: "But did you know the plot involved killing him?"  He said: "Yes".  So let's stop there.
	The Judge further finds in that case that in all probability what Barnard tried to do, and it's my submission, but I won't elaborate on this, is what he did in Webster.  He thought himself he wanted to kill Mr Omar, to enhance himself in the eyes of the CCB.  That's what Judge Els found.  
	Now with the weapon his evidence and he himself realises that his evidence cannot be accepted Chairperson, what does he say in summary?  He says: "I went down to Cape Town approximately three times".  On the first occasion he says: "I knew from then on I had to murder", that's when the issue of the handing over the gun was dealt with.  But then he says he complains to Mr van Zyl, he says: "Look, this is not going to work, I'm sticking out here like a sore thumb, rather find me an opportunity where Mr Omar is speaking, it's going to be easier".  This can't be done, but yet he wants us to believe that on the third occasion he comes back, they've already assessed the situation and said it can't be done, to say he then went there to shoot Minister Omar, but he didn't do so because he came out of the house accompanied by a lady.  Now let's stop with that statement.  
	We've heard Mr Barnard, Mr Barnard beats people's brains up and he sits here and he says their brain explodes.  What reluctance would Mr Barnard have to shoot Mr Omar and the lady?  After all, he shot Mr Webster in the presence of Maggie Friedman, and what did he say?  He said: "Yes, and after I shot David Webster there was a car behind us, I was getting ready to shoot them as well".  Since when would this man care about not killing others?

MR LAX: Are you saying that his explanation for why he didn't shoot at that point ... he would have felt bad about what he'd done in Webster?  Are you saying that's nonsense?

MR MARTINI: Well let's go to Lubowski's incident.  He says: "I was hired to monitor Lubowski" and he says: "I phoned Van Zyl ... I'm going to shoot him".  And Van Zyl had a heart attack and said: "Don't do it".  Why suddenly?  With Lubowski he's got no instructions, he's only monitoring and now he sees the man, he says: "Now I'm going to kill him.  And his evidence was: "Mr van Zyl had a heart attack, he said: 'You're not to do that'".  Now he's got remorse in shooting Minister Omar.

MR LAX: Well you can't have it both ways.  Van Zyl has a heart attack about Lubowski, but he's furious about Omar, so must we accept that evidence?

MR MARTINI: No, if you let me finish Mr Lax, I was going to come to that point.
	Mr van Zyl never said: "You should have shot the woman as well".  What I'm saying is, it's improbable, because Barnard - Mr van Zyl's evidence is not: "I told Barnard to shoot Minister Omar and the lady", that's Barnard's evidence.  I'm saying you've got to reject that evidence, it's highly improbable.

MR LAX: Yes, but it's Barnard's evidence also that when he wanted to shoot Lubowski, Van Zyl had a heart attack.

MR MARTINI: I'm with you, I'm with you, but I'm saying why would Mr Barnard make a statement: "Shoot this woman that's with him"?  Why would Barnard have remorse in shooting a man?  His explanation is: "I felt bad after the Maggie Friedman incident".  This man doesn't feel bad about anything.  After Webster he bashed in Mr Francis's brains and you heard the ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Yes, you don't have to repeat it, you've repeated it about four times now.