Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-09-29

FERDINAND BARNARD: I would just like to answer before you continue.  I have placed it on record more than once and I would like to do it once again, that I was dealt with in a different way, that it is very clear that I was dealt with in a different way.  They never offered a contract to me and told me I can claim money, and I never did it.

MR WESSELS: Mr Barnard what I cannot understand is that if you were now treated in a different way or not they owed you money.  You are a member of the CCB, you receive a monthly salary, you do not even ask them for the money.

FERDINAND BARNARD: No I did not do it.

MR WESSELS: And they do not offer it either.  All the other people received money, not just their salaries but also substantial severance packages. But you also do not ask for that.

FERDINAND BARNARD: Sir, I am not an attorney.  I did not look at it in the way in which you are looking at it.  I was informed and led by the legal representative who acted on my behalf on the instructions of the CCB and those people told me that the CCB will disband and I am not going to continue, and that's why I went to the DCC.

MR WESSELS: No Mr Barnard I will put to you the reason why you did not ask for your salary was, why you did not receive the substantial severance package was because you were not a member of the CCB.

FERDINAND BARNARD: Ja that's a new one Sir, but I do not agree with you.

MR WESSELS: No Mr Barnard that's not a new one, it's a very old thing where from the beginning it was testified and you conceded to it that Lafras Luitingh fired you in March 1988 after you compromised the organisation or it became known that you worked at a State organisation with the McQuillan project.

FERDINAND BARNARD: Yes Sir, but then I also find it on my side very astonishing that people spent hundreds of thousands of rand on my legal costs, why would they do it, if I had then nothing to do with them, why did they do it?

MR WESSELS: You were arrested and you made a statement under section 29 while you were under arrest.

FERDINAND BARNARD: More than one.

MR WESSELS: More than one.  There you did not admit that you were involved in Webster, you denied it.

FERDINAND BARNARD: That's correct.

MR WESSELS: But what you did admit was that you were involved in the conspiracy to kill Dullah Omar.

FERDINAND BARNARD: I cannot recall if I admitted to my conspiracy or my involvement in that.  It is possible.

MR WESSELS: Well let us look at what you've said.

CHAIRPERSON: What legal costs were paid by the Defence Force for you Mr Barnard?

FERDINAND BARNARD: Mr Chairperson while I was under detention, according to section 29, there were two applications for my release.  Each was about R20-R30,000, where the cash was conveyed to Calla Botha.  It was given to my father so that he will come forward as a front person to cover the costs.  During the Harms Commission they paid all my legal costs.  In the formal post mortem inquest of Dr Webster they paid everything.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you have any costs in regard to the inquest?

FERDINAND BARNARD: No it was all paid by the Defence Force.

CHAIRPERSON: And your trial?

FERDINAND BARNARD: The trial they did not pay for.  At this stage the government of the day had changed and I could not turn to them.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was the two applications while you were detained in terms of section 29, the costs incurred at the inquest into the death of Dr Webster and costs incurred by yourself in respect of the Harms Commission.

FERDINAND BARNARD: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You say those costs were paid by ...(intervention)

FERDINAND BARNARD: Then at the Goldstone Commission I also appeared.  I am not quite if they paid, or who paid for it.  I did not pay anything when I appeared before the Goldstone Commission.  I did have a legal representative.

MR WESSELS: If you look at Bundle B, page 92, the second last paragraph reads as follows
"At a certain stage I had a liaison with Slang van Zyl.  He asked me if I can collect information on Dullah Omar in the Cape.  That was his instruction but he would pay me very well if I get this information.  I went to the Cape three times and returned to get the named information.  On the third time Slang joined me in the Cape and told me that Dullah had to be killed."
The next paragraph -
"Slang van Zyl handed over a Makarov pistol with a silencer or he showed it to me and he told me that this was the weapon that Jack provided them with to do the work on Omar".
Then it continues, they make mention of the poison, is that now true Mr Barnard?

FERDINAND BARNARD: Yes Sir, here I knew that if there was a problem I would have the back-up that Slang van Zyl can support me.  So I did not do it on my own, running around.  It's not quite true that I knew it from the beginning that I had to kill him.

MR WESSELS: But the point is Sir you asked me a question, I would like to answer that.  You asked me why your legal costs were paid, now I will put it to you that the possibility is that your costs were paid because you compromised the organisation which was a secret organisation.

FERDINAND BARNARD: I do note of it ...(intervention)

MR WESSELS: That is the reason, not because you were a member who would be involved in the Webster case.

FERDINAND BARNARD: Why would they pay for the Webster case then, it's got nothing to do with this?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman might I ask, is this Mr Wessels' client's instructions or is this a hypothesis that he's putting to the witness?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wessels?

MR WESSELS: Sir I said the possible reason could be is because he compromised the organisation and that's why they paid for his legal costs.

MR KAHANOVITZ: The point I am trying to make Mr Chairman is Mr Wessels doesn't need to speculate.  He can put his client's version to the witness, and I would suggest that he does so.

MR WESSELS: Well Mr Chairman my client wasn't cross-examined on the basis of the evidence that Mr Barnard has given.  We were surprised by the evidence that Mr Barnard gave here when he entered the witness box.  It came to us as a complete surprise.  I don't have instructions on many of these aspects and before I can put a version I would have to have a postponement which will probably be asked for in due course.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes we understand what Mr Wessels is putting is not as a result of instructions received but I don't think it's causing anybody any harm.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But can I just then place on record I take it that the same then applies to what was put to the witness when it was said that "everybody in the CCB besides Mr Barnard received a package on termination", was that a submission put or was that based on actual evidence that will be led?

MR WESSELS: That is based on actual evidence that is available.  Those are my instructions.

MR MARTINI: Sorry, Chairperson, just to correct the record Mr van Zyl's evidence was that he resigned and he never got any package.  People are putting here that, Mr Kahanovitz has now put that "everybody" received.  Mr van Zyl's direct evidence was that he resigned in October '89 and he never received any packages from the CCB because he resigned.

MR LAX: Just for the record, Mr Wessels put it, not Mr Kahanovitz.  Mr Kahanovitz was just repeating the original assertion.

MR MARTINI: Yes Mr Lax I just want to correct the record that "everybody" does not include Mr van Zyl.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR WESSELS: No, no, let me make it clear.  When I say "everybody", I think I put it when I put questions to Mr Barnard, at the time of the dissolution of the CCB all the members that were members at the time of the dissolution of the CCB, were paid.  Not people that were previously discharged or had resigned or any of that nature.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.