Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-10-03

MR WESSELS: I find it difficult to understand.  You see, by requesting amnesty at that stage or at a later stage, given the fact that Joe and Lafras could also apply for amnesty if they were exposed, no-one would have gone to jail because everybody would have received amnesty, seeing as the act was committed with the objectives which would fall within the ambit of the Act.  So no-one would have been prejudiced if you had decided to tell the truth.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I'm prepared to go on record by saying that if it wasn't for the fact that there was prima facie evidence that Mr Verster was involved with our projects and had extended approval for these projects, he also wouldn't have requested amnesty.  There was no way in which and Luitingh would have requested amnesty for the Webster incident after Barnard had exposed them.

MR WESSELS: Is that your own deduction?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Is that your own deduction?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: No, it is based upon discussions which took place, during which I could see the hesitance with regard to the application for amnesty regarding certain projects.

MR WESSELS: You see Mr Botha, you took a tremendous risk when you realised that evidence was coming from everywhere indicating that you were involved, or at least not you but Mr Barnard was involved with the Webster incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want Mr Botha to comment on that or...

MR WESSELS: ...(indistinct - no microphone).  I was passed a note here by Mr Kahanovitz, I just want to read it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I just wanted to clarify the situation in respect of something that was put to the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: He's having difficulty reading your writing, Mr Kahanovitz.

MR KAHANOVITZ: It appears so.  Just in relation to something that was put to the witness about what was the evidence at the Webster Inquest.  I just wanted to point out that at the Webster Inquest it was Luitingh's version that although he had this meeting with Barnard, he actually never passed the information on to Verster.  He says - this is in the Finding at pages 137 to 138, Judge Stegman notes that two witnesses, Luitingh and someone by the name of Louw, this is probably the Chris Nel that we've heard of, both said that Barnard had made confessions to them, but he goes on to find that
"Although two members of the inner circle, Luitingh and Louw, now claim that Barnard had already confessed to the murder and that Luitingh had informed Louw of the confession, neither Luitingh nor Louw then passed on what they knew of the matter to Verster.  The explanation of this state of affairs is somewhat weak.  Firstly, Luitingh and Louw claim to have disbelieved Barnard's alleged confession and secondly, Luitingh testified that if he had revealed Barnard's confession to Verster, he would at the same time have revealed his own breaches of security in failing to make a clean break with Barnard and that as he feared for the consequences of his breach of security, he kept his knowledge of Barnard's confession from Verster."

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Could you just repeat the page numbers please.

MR KAHANOVITZ: 137 to 138.  I think Luitingh might have subsequently changed his version.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Kahanovitz.

MR WESSELS: I think Mr Botha, what Mr Verster testified is that at a certain stage he received this information from Mr Luitingh, and it could be at the time when the Generals made the investigations, but I will not speculate it any further.  What I'm putting to you is that there's at least two members of the CCB who then involved Mr Barnard in this murder.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: If you just give me a moment to comment on that extract.  Mr Luitingh was a trustee of Mr Verster, so much so that they come from the Defence Force inner circle.  He has not got - he cannot discuss this with Mr Verster under oath.  Do you now understand why on the basis of what has been said now, I can go to Verster or Webb to discuss things if he under oath states that he as an inner circle member, would not have discussed it with Verster.  This is they psychosis of fear that was present concerning Mr Verster and his capability.

MR LAX: Can I just correct the transcript please.  The word "trustee" was used instead of confidant.  You just spoke about being a confidant of Verster's, rather than a trustee.  In other words, a relationship of trust between them.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just ask one question before you proceed, Mr Wessels.
	Do you know at all of the circumstances under which Derek Louw or Chris Nel came to know of Mr Barnard's involvement of Dr Webster?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: No, Sir, I do not know the person.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But Mr Chairman, according to this Luitingh passed this information on to ...

CHAIRPERSON: To Derek Louw, sorry.  Yes, so my question wasn't appropriate.

MR KAHANOVITZ: It's not claimed that Barnard was the direct source.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

MR WESSELS: Luitingh told Louw about it and then asked him what he had to do.  Mr Chairman, let me read from page 1974 from the record, that is the evidence of Louw
"Did Lafras Luitingh make mention of a discussion which he had with Barnard after Dr Webster's death?"
the answer:
"Yes."
		"Did he tell you what Ferdi Barnard told him with regards to Webster's death?"
		"Yes.  The information that I received from Lafras was that Lafras was clearly nervous.  I cannot quote the conversation in the way in which we had it, but Lafras was worried and he told me because I was aware of the fact that Joe Verster discharged Barnard, Joe Verster's opinion of Barnard was according to what I heard, hearsay, that he believed Ferdi Barnard was a criminal and that there was no position for somebody like him in the organisation.  Lafras asked me and he said that he was worried or concerned that Ferdi Barnard told him something which would put him in a bad position, because if he would he would fire him, which is Lafras.  He then asked him about it.  He was not willing to talk about it.  I realised that he had a problem and Lafras kept quiet or told me to keep quiet and I said that I will not discuss this with anyone, and then he told me that Ferdi Barnard used the English word "claim", in that he floored Webster.  These are the words that he used.  And this was an attempt to prove to Joe that he was acceptable, that he can be used by the CCB and that he must not be discharged or fired."
Can you recall that evidence?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Yes, I can recall it.  The words that they used there, that he must not be fired.  This is now Mr Lafras Luitingh's words or is it the other party's words?

MR WESSELS: This now Mr Louw who reported about what happened between him and Luitingh.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: That he must not be fired?

MR WESSELS: Yes.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: He was therefore not fired.

MR WESSELS: The point that I'm trying to make here is that at that stage you knew that Mr Barnard was accused and evidence was now there that Mr Barnard made a certain admittance and that you were at risk.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I did not see this.  Mr Barnard had the opportunity to make certain admissions and he did not, so there was no risk for me because I told him to keep quiet about the whole matter.

MR WESSELS: But you now have heard that Lafras Luitingh said that Barnard would have told him this, and this was said in court and Luitingh also testified to that effect, that Barnard would have told him that he shot Webster, and you are now aware that you are at risk.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: If you see it that way, yes.

MR WESSELS: Did you not mention to for example a legal representative of a higher political person or the Attorney-General, did you not tell them: "I want to talk, I want to tell the truth now and the people who really gave the instructions must take responsibility for what they, for these instructions that they gave"?