Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-11-18

MR MARTINI: ...(sound cut off) ... issue, the issue of the weapon.  What does Mr Barnard say?  There's different bundles, Mr Chairman will you excuse me.  We can find it, but the gist of it is, in his evidence-in-chief Mr Barnard was questioned on the issue of the Makarov pistol.  His evidence was and it's clear - I've got a note here, but I can find the bundle, at page 2668
"I never asked to monitor Dullah Omar, as has been the case, I was requested to kill Dullah Omar, because the other persons had proven ineffective.  Arrangements were made for me and a meeting took place with a Coloured gang member, one Peaches.  I think at the Cape Sun Hotel or some place nearby.  It was in the evening.  Peaches ...(indistinct) after our discussion and returned and in my presence he handed over a firearm to Van Zyl.  A Makarov pistol with a silencer.  Which he removed from the box.  Van Zyl gave the Makarov and the silencer to me.  I hid it in the ceiling of my hotel room."
Very, very important words these, because if the Committee then refers to the cross-examination by Mr Bizos, and I submit Mr Bizos realised the slip because he asked him the question twice, he says:
"Who gave you the Makarov?"
he says:
"Peaches"
Mr Bizos then asks him again:
"Who gave you the Makarov?"
and he says:
"I have no doubt, Peaches"
Now that's a material discrepancy on a weapon.  But we'll go further - sorry, Chairperson, if you can just bear with me.  Yes Chairperson, conflicted or referred to, page 298(sic), where Mr Bizos asks this question:
"Did the firearm come out of the possession of Peaches?"
		"MR BARNARD:  It came from the possession of Peaches and upon Slang van Zyl's instruction he handed it over to me."
in the presence of Slang.
"MR BARNARD:   It was a Makarov pistol, a Russian manufactured Makarov with a silencer."

GEORGE BIZOS: Are you absolutely certain it came from Peaches?"
Why does he ask the question this way?  He realises the slip.
"MR BARNARD:   I have no doubt about that."
But let's go further.  He says he put the weapon in the ceiling of his room, and we'll find the words Chairperson, how improbable ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Hand back some weeks later and in the same room where he got ...(indistinct)

MR MARTINI: Correct, correct.  And not only this, how did he know he was going to stay in the same hotel, that the hotel - and if he did get the same hotel, how was he going to know he's going to get the same room to retrieve it?  Total - my submission is Mr Barnard never had the Makarov.  And if I have time, Chairperson, he does state that it was returned to Peaches.  And later he tries, he's realised the Committee's problem, in his evidence he suggests
"Ja, it's absurd for Mr van Zyl to tell Peaches to get rid of it."
But what happened to the Makarov then, if Barnard had it?  All that Judge Els found was it was a Makarov pistol, not the same one.  And remember Barnard's evidence:
"I have more weapons that the CCB"
Why would he need to get a weapon from Mr van Zyl, on his version, and later he says he got it from Peaches?

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's a question of travelling in an aeroplane with guns and stuff, it's not so easy, you know if you need a gun in Cape Town, it's better to get it in Cape Town than to try to bring it from Jo'burg, especially if you're flying.

MR MARTINI: A possibility.  But my submission is he's never had it, it was always in Peaches's possession, as per Mr van Zyl's evidence.  So coupled with what this man is with the inconsistencies, I say in answer to Mr Lax's earlier question, you cannot accept his evidence above that of Mr van Zyl, where it is in conflict with Mr van Zyl's evidence.
	But Chairperson, if the Committee wants to find, which I submit it cannot, and believe Barnard, then I say it's irrelevant.  If the Committee finds that Mr van Zyl did not disclose this fact, the Committee cannot state that he has failed to make a full disclosure of a relevant fact.  But the Committee will be hard pressed to accept Mr Barnard's evidence in that regard in the face of his admitted lies, doing crime every day.  I'm sure this Committee hasn't hear people testifying: "I've done crimes all my life".

MR LAX: Yes, let's move on, we've heard that three or four times now and time is of the essence here.

MR MARTINI: ...(sound cut off) ... stressing the point, Mr Lax ...(intervention)

MR LAX: You have already though, let's just move on.

MR MARTINI: ...(sound cut off) ... insofar as it may be alleged or argued that the applicant, Mr van Zyl, and all other applicants, intended to kill, the Committee cannot make such a finding.  And I refer in this regard to Mr Wessels's argument on the law on the Blom authority.  Why?  I submit, Chairperson, that the evidence of Mr Williams, the evidence of Mr Oesman Alexander support Mr van Zyl's version.  And Mr van Zyl has told the Committee ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's not actually the evidence of Mr Williams.

MR MARTINI: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON: The statements of Mr Williams.

MR MARTINI: Sorry, statements of Mr Williams, because he hasn't testified, but he did put to the witness - Mr Williams himself says in his statement, unfortunately I don't have that statement to give a reference Chairperson, he says that he walked outside the hall, he went outside.  He says the Kewtown Youth Movement terminated the meeting.  Mr Alexander himself says the Kewtown Youth Movement terminated their meeting, which ...(indistinct) credibility to what Mr van Zyl says ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I think it's common cause that they had finished the meeting, because when the bomb went off the meeting was finished.  I mean there's no version before us to say that the meeting hadn't finished, the whole question was whether the people had left, had left the building.

MR MARTINI: Well Mr van Zyl says they'd left, the Kewtown Youth Movement clearly had left.  What's important is Mr van Zyl, as Mr Alexander himself, could not have known that ... meeting there that night.

MR LAX: Well there wasn't just one meeting there, there were two meetings there, there was the football meeting and the other meeting.  But really, the fact is there were people there, we know that, it's an objective fact.  You're certainly not arguing there weren't people in there?

MR MARTINI: No, that's not my argument Mr Lax.

MR LAX: Yes.  So the question then goes, Hardien went in there at your client's request and surely it must have been obvious that there were people in there.

MR MARTINI: Well Mr Lax, I don't know why you're say surely, because if you take the objective statement of Mr Blignaut and Coetzee, the soccer players, they contradict Mr Alexander, they say the hall was locked, which supports Mr van Zyl's version.  They say there was no-one in the foyer.  Now these people aren't activists.  Mr Alexander confirmed he's a political activist.  These are soccer players, they've got no reason ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Either way there were 15 people in the building.