Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-09-28

FERDINAND BARNARD: Sir, if I can place it in perspective, in the way which I recall it, I discussed the possibility of amnesty with my legal representative.  I read Slang van Zyl's statements and I was under the impression that van Zyl testified at the TRC and that he incriminated me there.  But apart from that, I applied for the Bishop Tutu case, concerning the baboon foetus, as well as Adv Dullah Omar case, because I have already been incriminated by the statement that Slang van Zyl made in 1988 or whenever.
	That is the reason why I did it, I took my chance with the rest.  I did not want to admit to anything else, I did not submit any other application for the reasons that I have just given you, for Webster and other reasons.  It was for that specific reason why I applied for those two.  It was to create a safety net if I was found guilty and Slang van Zyl testified against me, then I've got a safety net to fall back, and that would be the TRC process.
	The same thing with the Adv Omar case.  When her daughter testified, it was applicable to me.  They could not be more correct.  The only reason why I applied for amnesty was to prevent possible charges.  I admitted, that is what I did, and in my case it was definitely the correct summary I made, or assumption that I made.

MR WESSELS: You see, you created a safety net for yourself where it was applicable.  The only place where you did not create a safety net, was with the Webster incident.

FERDINAND BARNARD: What do you want me to comment on?

MR WESSELS: The reason for that was simply that it was not possible because you shot Dr Webster on your own initiative, or on the instruction of somebody else, but not the CCB?

FERDINAND BARNARD: No sir, I did not know that I was going to be found guilty on the Webster case, I am not Nostradamus, I did not know this.  Apart from that, I did not know about all the people who have climbed out of the woodwork and said that I made certain statements to them.  I was not found at the scene, there was no ballistic tests done, they did not find the weapon on me, there were no signs left at the scene.  I was found guilty on the grounds of, that people came and told me that I made - it is a tactic that I have used before.

MR WESSELS: Yes, you knew that it was a case that the government will win against you, Mr Barnard?

FERDINAND BARNARD: I did not know the nature of it.  I did not know who was going to come forward and tell.

MR WESSELS: But you knew that the State was going to make use of that?

FERDINAND BARNARD: Yes, I thought that possibly they might use it.

MR WESSELS: You also knew that through all the years, your biggest problem was that you could not keep your mouth shut?

FERDINAND BARNARD: This is how it was presented in the media, and what was told, but the truth is far from it.  I made the statement and what I testified in front of this Committee and also to Righ Verster, I made that statement when we were involved at the DCC.
	He originally came to me and first made certain disclosures to me concerning the Webster incident.  I actually thought he was part of the DCC as well, and at a certain stage we discussed this matter, and I told him that I killed Webster.  I did not have any reason to lie to him.  But all the other witnesses, the dope smokers, the prostitutes, Jacques Pauw and Righ Verster, they were the only ones who told the truth.  I am not talking about Lafras Luitingh, he knew right from the beginning that he was part of the planning and he did not tell the truth.
	The Attorney-General and his authority will be able to seize that person, it is a civil person.  He will first make a statement in order to ensure that he will not get bail.  "You can see there is photographs, look how he killed this person, he hit him over the head with a bat", they will create a psychosis of fear in order to oppose the bail.  Then they will tell this person, what do you know about Mr Barnard, then the witness will come forward and tell everything that he knows about this person, some will be the truth, most of it will be the truth and they will ask him "sir, didn't he tell you that he killed Dr Webster", what do you think that person will say then, especially if he was an accomplice?
	Adv Anton Ackerman's amnesty, it was a circus, the way in which he handed it out left, right and centre. If the people outside, the public knew, look at Eugene de Kock, Wouter Basson and myself, how many got a Section 204 indemnity.  In most cases, all these people were accomplices.
	The people who were not accomplices, and Mr Jacques Pauw, they were the people who indeed admitted to it.

MR WESSELS: And Mr Righ Verster, he also told the truth, you have just said?

FERDINAND BARNARD: I said he told the truth concerning the statement that he made, but Righ Verster was not an accomplice in some of the other crimes.

MR WESSELS: But yesterday you said the only two people who told the truth with certain of the statements that you made, were Brenda and Jacques?

FERDINAND BARNARD: Yes sir, we are playing with words.

MR WESSELS: No sir, we are not playing with words.  We are talking about the identity of a person who you yesterday said lied by implication, because you did not mention him as a person who told the truth?

FERDINAND BARNARD: Very well, I did not mention him, but I will mention him today.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you after your arrest in August 1997, seriously consider applying for amnesty in respect of Dr Webster's murder, after you had been arrested, the last month before you could get applications in?

FERDINAND BARNARD: Mr Chairperson, I did consider it, but I was scared or concerned that, you must now remember that Joe Verster came with me all the way.  He agreed with me and he denied all involvement in the Webster incident.
	When it was coming to an end or a point and there was a formal inquest, then the people, all in the Defence Force, they fought in the Bush War, and they all ganged up against me.  People testified against me that I did not even know, Jerry Botes, one of them.  And the reason, when I thought about amnesty applications, I thought "let's say I go, all these people will gang up against me again, they will be able to prove certain statements and I had nobody to support me".

CHAIRPERSON: Because those reasons aside, you would  have had a definite advantage if you did apply, or benefit, for amnesty, because that would have put a hold on your trial?

FERDINAND BARNARD: That is possible, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: They wouldn't have conducted your trial until the conclusion of your amnesty hearing?

FERDINAND BARNARD: I understand so, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And at that time, wouldn't that have been a benefit for you at least, a bit of breathing space?

FERDINAND BARNARD: Sir, what does it help if I stand on one place, in the end I still go to jail?  When I qualify now for parole is when I am 65, if I did it the other way, I would have qualified when I am 70?  They would have sent me right to an old age home when I left jail.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wessels?

MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Barnard, you are a person who constantly built safety nets around you and you acted in your own interest, is that correct?

FERDINAND BARNARD: No, it sounds as if you are talking about your client, Mr Wessels.

MR WESSELS: Mr Barnard, I am putting it to you, it is your evidence that you created safety nets around you, in your own interest, is that not true?

FERDINAND BARNARD: Yes, I testified concerning that, and concerning the projects that I testified about.

MR WESSELS: Well, try to answer my question correctly, do not try to refer it back to my client.

FERDINAND BARNARD: Well, shoot then.