MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, the next amnesty applicant is Mr Gerrie Barnard.
GERRIE JOHAN BARNARD: (sworn states)
MR MALAN: You may be seated.
EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Barnard, your amnesty application is embodied in Volume 1, page 78 to 80, that is the formal document?
MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And the incidents for which you apply for amnesty, appear on page 81 to 85, Annexure A, is that correct?
MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And your political motivation appears in Annexure B, page 86 to 93?
MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: Do you confirm the contents of this application?
MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: During 1988, where were you stationed?
MR BARNARD: I was stationed at the Security Branch Piet Retief.
MS VAN DER WALT: And under whose command did you resort?
MR BARNARD: Warrant Officer Pienaar, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: If it is possible Mr Barnard, could you speak up, I cannot hear you?
MR BARNARD: I am sorry.
MS VAN DER WALT: What was your rank?
MR BARNARD: I was a Sergeant Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: You were one of the persons who participated there, you were one of the lowest ranks, is that correct?
MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: At that stage, this is now June 1988, how long were you attached to the Security Branch at Piet Retief?
MR BARNARD: Approximately a year.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you were also involved in the first instance where the Toyota Corolla was involved, wherein persons were killed?
MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: You have heard the evidence of Mr De Kock and Mr Pienaar, is that correct?
MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you are aware that four persons were killed in that incident?
MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know of any weapons and explosives which were planted on the deceased, or did you not know of it?
MR BARNARD: I knew about it at a later stage.
MS VAN DER WALT: Only at a later stage? What was your instruction in that event, what did you have to do?
MR BARNARD: We received instructions that an infiltration would take place on the Houtkop/Piet Retief road and I went along with a group of Colonel De Kock, of which Colonel De Kock was the Commander to a point on the Houtkop/Piet Retief road where we took up position and where this incident according to our instruction, would take place and what we had also done was that we went there as it is known to the Commission, and that is where it happened.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you know that the persons would be led into an ambush?
MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you fire shots yourself?
MR BARNARD: Yes, I did Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: What type of weapon did you have?
MR BARNARD: I had an Uzzi, a hand carbine.
MS VAN DER WALT: Were you in any way involved in the planning and the negotiations before the time, before this incident?
MR BARNARD: No Chairperson, only partially, it was Warrant Officer Pienaar and Colonel De Kock did the planning and afterwards we were informed as to what would happen.
MS VAN DER WALT: Who gave you instructions to accompany them?
MR BARNARD: We were under instructions of Warrant Officer Pienaar and Colonel De Kock.
MS VAN DER WALT: And the second incident on the 12th of June 1988, were you also involved there?
MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And were you also aware that the persons would be lured into an ambush?
MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you also fire shots during this incident?
MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: With the same weapon?
MR BARNARD: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you see whether these persons had any weapons with them after the incident?
MR BARNARD: After the incident, as I could see my actions there, I did not become involved with the vehicle, I remained back from the vehicle and if I recall correctly, Warrant Officer Pienaar searched through the vehicles and AK47 rifles and handgrenades were found in the vehicles.
MS VAN DER WALT: Is it correct that because you were a junior Officer, you kept a low profile, you only had an instruction to be present at the ambush and fire shots and furthermore you had nothing else to do?
MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: You then - just a moment - you have also made a statement, it was also to Brigadier Van Wyk, is that correct?
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: That was on the 21st of June 1989, it is embodied in Bundle 3(a) Chairperson, pages 3 and 4. Do you recall that you made such a statement?
MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And that is the only statement?
MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And in this statement, there are certain untruths?
MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: You mention that the occupants of the vehicle, that is on page 4 Chairperson, paragraph 3, that the persons would be arrested, is that correct?
MR BARNARD: That is correct. That was not the intention.
MS VAN DER WALT: So what is in this statement is incorrect?
MR BARNARD: That is right Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: As well as the second last paragraph on page 2, that there would have been a pulling off vehicle with a blue flash light, was that correct?
MR BARNARD: It is correct in the statement, but that was not there, that is not how it happened.
MS VAN DER WALT: And the fact that Major De Kock had shouted that they were the police, did that happen?
MR BARNARD: No, that is also a lie.
MS VAN DER WALT: How did it come about that you made a statement that was not correct?
MR BARNARD: This was to fit in with the post mortem inquest which at that stage was being handled by Brigadier Van Wyk.
MS VAN DER WALT: Who proposed to you that you put these untruths in your statement?
MR BARNARD: It was Brigadier Van Wyk.
MS VAN DER WALT: When you made the statement you were still a Sergeant?
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: And still stationed at Piet Retief?
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: You apply for amnesty for both of these instances for murder as well as any other offence which might flow therefrom?
MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: As well as the crime of perjury and defeating the ends of justice?
MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And any other unlawful act which might flow from this?
MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Van der Walt. Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Barnard, Piet Retief Branch and the great area that it had to investigate, had a relatively small staff which had the responsibility of combating this large degree of insurgency?
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: According to the evidence, there was a high number of insurgencies during which Piet Retief was used in Eastern Transvaal and Natal?
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And at the time of this action, you regarded it as a general action in the execution of your duties, in protecting your country and combat terrorism so that the government of the day, could remain in power?
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to clear up something, on page 82 you say that three passengers were killed, you probably mean four?
MR BARNARD: Yes, there we made an error, it is not that we wanted to hide anything, there were four persons.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?
MR HATTINGH: No questions.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?
MR BOOYENS: No questions thank you.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?
MR JANSEN: Thank you, no questions, Mr Chairman.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: No questions Chairperson.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Thank you Mr Chair. Relating to your last answer, why did you say there were three occupants?
MR BARNARD: I would concede that we made a mistake, these were well known facts and we definitely made a mistake in that regard, it was supposed to be four persons.
MR MOERANE: Who is "we", yourself and? All the people who made statements from the same computer, same words, not so?
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR MOERANE: Didn't you read this before you signed it?
MR BARNARD: Yes, I read it and I must have not noticed the mistake.
MR MOERANE: Do you know a person by the surname of Rajbansi?
MR BARNARD: Yes, I have heard a lot about him.
MR MOERANE: What do you know about Mr Rajbansi?
MR BARNARD: Well, there are many jokes that have been made about him, he was a respected person in the community in Durban and surrounding areas, but I don't know him personally.
MR MOERANE: Is that all you know about him?
MR BARNARD: There may be something else which I may recall later, but not at this stage.
MR MOERANE: Was there any reason to mention him in your statement?
MR BARNARD: I will have to study that first and then I can give you an answer to that question.
MR MOERANE: Look at paragraph 6.
MR BARNARD: Yes, I know about that. About the incident of an explosion in Durban, I knew about it, at a stage it came to my attention, it was also in the news.
MR MOERANE: Tell me about that incident, what do you know about it?
MR BARNARD: This took place quite a long time ago, I cannot recall precisely what everything was about.
MR MOERANE: Why do you decide to mention it in 1996? What relevance did it have?
MR BARNARD: I don't know, I cannot really recall what the precise reason is for the fact that I mentioned it at that stage, it escapes me now as to why I might have mentioned it at that stage.
MR MOERANE: Did Rajbansi have anything to do with the incident in respect of which you were making your application for amnesty?
MR BARNARD: No, I don't believe that he had anything to do with the amnesty application for Piet Retief and these incidents.
MR MOERANE: Isn't the correct position Mr Barnard, that all these statements which were in identical words, had Mr Rajbansi's name, so you just decided to sign it?
MR BARNARD: I cannot really respond to that, at that stage the facts were more clear to me and I recalled them better, and that is what I made my statement according to.
MR MOERANE: You see, what I am suggesting to you is that you have put your heads together, not necessarily that you were at the same place, but you put your heads together and decided on a version that you must give for your amnesty application?
MR BARNARD: I wasn't with any person who was involved in this incident, when I made the statement.
MR MOERANE: Yes, well you deposed to your statement in Knysna on the 11th of December.
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR MOERANE: Do you know how to spell Rajbansi?
MR BARNARD: Well, I am not a linguistic expert.
MR MOERANE: On this occasion, this was the first occasion now, you shot at this motor vehicle, the Toyota Corolla?
MR BARNARD: I don't really understand.
MR MOERANE: You fired at the motor vehicle?
MR BARNARD: Yes, I fired at the Toyota Corolla.
MR MOERANE: And you discovered later that the occupants were not armed?
MR BARNARD: Yes, that is correct.
MR MOERANE: Then you involved yourself again four days later, in another ambush?
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR MOERANE: What did you feel about having shot unarmed people?
MR BARNARD: At that stage, before the incidents, I did not know that these persons would be unarmed. I was very clearly under the impression that they would be armed. We said that it would be an ambush and I associated myself with that.
MR MOERANE: The question I am asking you, after the event, after you realised that you had shot unarmed people, three of whom were women, how did you feel?
MR BARNARD: Chairperson, at that stage, our country was involved in a struggle against terrorism and many acts of terrorism were committed throughout the country, especially in the Eastern Transvaal, there were many cases where landmines were detected, there were many explosions that we heard of in previous cases as the evidence has been here and I don't know whether those acts were committed by a man or a woman, I think that both a man and a woman can be responsible for the same acts of terrorism. If a trigger is pulled, no one will ask if it is a man or a woman, they can be held responsible for exactly the same deeds.
MR MOERANE: Is that your complete answer to my question which I put to you twice?
MR BARNARD: I don't know precisely what you want me to say. I would try to understand the question better in Afrikaans.
MR MOERANE: Well, let me put it to you for the third time. How did you feel after realising that you had shot four unarmed persons, three of whom were women?
MS VAN DER WALT: I am not trying to interrupt matters here, I am sure that everybody would like to finish off this application, but I really do believe that Mr Barnard has answered the question, he said that when they were shot, he did not know that they were unarmed. He said that the country was involved in a war.
CHAIRPERSON: The question was how did he feel after the killing, we take it that he felt nothing or what?
MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, but I would just want to say that he elaborated regarding the women, because that question was also put to him that if one pulled the trigger, he said a man and a woman enjoy equal status.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh no, we heard that, but I don't think that was the question, how he felt about shooting, it was how did he, himself, feel after the shooting, not whether there is any difference between men or women enemies.
MR MOERANE: Mr Chairman, I was actually trying to be very fair to the witness, because I thought he might have misunderstood the question, that is why I am asking him the third time, and it is being interpreted to him in Afrikaans. If his legal representative doesn't want him to answer, I think it can only be to his prejudice. I was just trying to assist him.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think it was a fair question. What Mr Moerane wants to know Mr Barnard is, after the shooting and four people were dead and it came to light that they weren't armed, how did you feel, you yourself personally, what did you feel, what were your feelings at that time after the shooting?
MR BARNARD: Yes, I was involved in the Security Branch and many a time I saw people that had died, I am sorry the audience has disrupted me somewhat, I have often seen how people had been killed, whether it be in an accident or any other situation, I didn't have much sympathy towards it otherwise I wouldn't have participated in the second incident. In the second incident I still reconciled myself with the action and participated in it.
MR MALAN: If I can just have some clarity, the fact that you realised that the persons who you expected to be armed, were unarmed, and that some of them were women, it did not upset you, it did not bring any remorse to you, they were still members of the enemy, you were not shocked or uncomfortable?
MR BARNARD: At that stage, that was the case.
MR MALAN: Very well, thank you.
MR MOERANE: Thank you Mr Chairman, thank you. I think he has been given sufficient opportunity to deal with the question and his attitude has come out very clearly. You went for the second round on the 12th of June?
MR BARNARD: That is correct Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: As far as you were concerned, you were fighting your enemy and you had to eliminate your enemy?
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR MOERANE: You forgot that you were a policeman whose first duty is to uphold the law?
MR BARNARD: Yes Chairperson, as I have said I was with the Security Branch and for me, it was also very political. I just want to express myself adequately - I am sorry, I have forgotten the last section of the question.
CHAIRPERSON: It was put to you, it is a rhetorical question really and it was that after saying that you felt that you were fighting your enemy and you had to kill them, then it was put to you that you forgot that you were a policeman with a duty to uphold the law.
MR BARNARD: Yes, at that stage I was a member of the Security Branch and our primary duties were to combat terrorism, to collect information and our primary duty according to my experience was also to combat the ANC who were involved in the ANC at that stage, even if we had to bend some of the rules.
MR MOERANE: Wasn't your prime duty, Sergeant Barnard, to uphold the law, protect life and property?
MR BARNARD: Yes, that is correct, but as I have said at that stage I was a member of the Security Branch and we handled with terrorism and insurgents as it would be in this case and the way I felt was that any possible method had to be used to prevent the results of insurgency and then possible further acts of terrorism.
MR MOERANE: Yes, you regarded the ANC in particular as a terrorist organisation?
MR BARNARD: Yes, that was so that the government which we served at that stage, regarded it as an unlawful organisation and I accepted this organisation as a terrorist organisation.
MR MOERANE: And you regarded members of the ANC who came into the country illegally, in other words, not through proper channels like border posts, as fair game, in other words that you could kill them at will? Was that your state of mind?
MR BARNARD: No, I am not saying that we could kill any ANC person on a random basis, we were involved in a different situation than the ANC persons who walked the streets. Great protest marches were held by the ANC and I don't think that we would have gone there and simply killed off everybody.
MR MOERANE: Why didn't you proceed with your normal duties as a policeman, investigate crime, arrest suspects, uphold the law?
MR BARNARD: I was with the Uniform Branch first and in time I ended up at Colel at the border post and from there, I became involved in small scale informer management and later I was taken up at the Security Branch at Piet Retief, through that channel.
MR MOERANE: Is the impression that some people had at the time that the Security Branch, particularly in the Eastern Transvaal was particularly vicious to the ANC, was that a legitimate perception?
MR BARNARD: Well, I cannot speak for what everybody thinks, it is a very broad perspective that you have sketched there.
MR MOERANE: Well, the perception that if you got caught by the Eastern Transvaal members of the Security Branch, chances are that you would be killed or at least tortured.
MR BARNARD: Yes, I cannot respond to that, as I said at that stage I had only spent a year at Piet Retief and I didn't have much experience with the occurrence of such deeds or whether such deeds were occurring, as I have said I didn't know the protracted history of the Eastern Transvaal. I worked in Natal and then I went to the border post after which I was taken up at Piet Retief Security Branch, so I didn't have a lengthy knowledge of the events in the Eastern Transvaal and the deeds to which you have referred.
MR MOERANE: Are you still a member of the Police Force?
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
MR MOERANE: Or Police Service as it is now called. What is your rank now?
MR BARNARD: I am a Captain.
MR MOERANE: Stationed at?
MR BARNARD: At Knysna.
MR MOERANE: Knysna? I see. In which particular branch of the Police Service?
MR BARNARD: The Detective Branch at Knysna.
MR MOERANE: Let's deal with the second incident, I want to concentrate on the alleged shooting. Please tell the Honourable Committee what happened after this vehicle had come to a stop, the kombi.
MR BARNARD: After the vehicle stopped, we had formed a line on the side of the road and when the vehicle came to a standstill, I think Mr De Kock was in the front and the members jumped up and ran in the direction of the vehicle. I cannot say exactly where I was, I was somewhere in the middle of the group and when we approached the vehicle, I was approximately in the middle of the left side of the vehicle, that is where I positioned myself, and then I saw that the left front door was going open and as it opened, a person jumped out or climbed out and shots were fired. I was very strongly under the impression that these shots came from the person who was climbing out of the vehicle, however, I couldn't see any flashes or anything like that. As I said, people were in front of me. I assumed that the first shots came from the person who was climbing out of the vehicle, however, that was my own sentiment or my own opinion, I didn't see him specifically fire a shot or see a flash come out of the gun that he had because there were people who were in front of me and obstructing my view.
MR MOERANE: Yes, the truth of the matter is that you did not see that person fire?
MR BARNARD: No, I didn't see the flash that would indicate that a shot had been fired. As I have said, I wasn't right at the front of the line, in order to see exactly what was going on and to see the barrel and the flame emerging from the barrel.
MR MOERANE: Then is there any reason why you said in paragraph 5 on page 84, that
"... a person with an AK47 jumped out and started firing"?
MR BARNARD: That is what I have just said, when the person climbed out of the vehicle, shots went off and I assumed that these shots came from the person who had climbed out of the vehicle on the left front side. It may also have been some of the members who were in the front of the line, who fired the shots but in my mind I accepted that it sounded as if it could have been that person.
MR MOERANE: Well, isn't the truth of the matter that that is the version which is supposed to fit in with your amnesty applications, all six or seven of you whose applications were typed from a particular computer and are identical on this aspect?
MR BARNARD: I cannot speak on behalf of them, I haven't read any one of their applications and I have not had the opportunity to study it. This is my own version and this is my sentiment and I cannot change anything about it, because that is a reflection of my experience at that time.
MR MOERANE: Colonel De Kock was in a much better position than you to see what actually happened, not so because he was right in front?
MR BARNARD: Yes, I believe so.
MR MOERANE: And if he says that there was no firing, he did not see any firing, you are prepared to accept that by this person coming out of the door? You would accept that?
MR BARNARD: I would concede to that, as I have said, I could not really see, it was at night and there would have been flames emerging from the firearm, but as I have said, Colonel De Kock and some of the other members were in front of me, and it would be speculative of me to say that there were flames coming from the firearm. I simply believed that the shots which had been fired, were fired by the person who climbed out of the kombi.
MR MOERANE: Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOERANE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Moerane. Ms Lockhat?
MS LOCKHAT: No questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, any re-examination Ms Van der Walt?
MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe, do you have any questions?
ADV GCABASHE: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?
MR MALAN: Yes, something about your evidence here, you have been examined in general regarding the maintenance of the law and arrests and the combating of crime, have I summarised it correctly if I heard you say that you understand the work of the Uniform Branch and that of the Security Branch as two totally different worlds, the Uniform Branch was involved in combating crime, but the Security Branch was involved in waging a war?
MR BARNARD: Yes Chairperson, there is a difference. I feel that there is a difference between the Security Branch and the Uniform Branch. The Uniform Branch operated mostly on ground level and dealt with one could almost say less serious matters. They were not always involved on the infiltration level or the levels upon which we moved, when it came to gathering intelligence and dealing directly with the infiltration process.
MR MALAN: Yes, you see because I just want to be certain, it sounds to me as if this is not only your perception, but you felt that the Uniform Branch was the police and that the Security Branch was waging war against terrorists and as you said, it could bend the rules, but it sounded to me as if you could operate under your own rules?
MR BARNARD: Yes, that is correct.
MR MALAN: So according to your evidence, it is my impression that you didn't really regard the Uniform Branch and the Security Branch as one Unit, or as two wings of one major purpose which would be the combating of crime and the security of the public?
MR BARNARD: The Security Branch moved on a different level. We received a lot of information from the Uniform Branch and so forth, but we did not operate on the same level.
MR MALAN: Security Branch only had to do with catching terrorists, is that how you understood it?
MR BARNARD: Regarding my short period at the Security Branch, that is how I understood it.
MR MALAN: It wasn't about protecting other people in general or combating crime or obtaining sensitive information which could lead to regular crime, to put it blatantly you were basically soldiers under the banner of the police?
MR BARNARD: I would accept that.
MR MALAN: And you weren't even restricted by the Geneva Convention or any other institutions? You simply acted according to the orders of your superiors and you accepted it as such?
MR BARNARD: Yes, that is correct.
MR MALAN: You didn't simply act under orders, you believed that that is why you were there?
MR BARNARD: Yes, that is correct.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
ADV GCABASHE: All the answers you have just given, yes, yes, yes, to Mr Malan's questions, where did you get the idea that that was your task, it is not what you were tasked to do in terms of the rules of who you were and what you were supposed to do? Where did you get the idea that you were a little army of your own, separate to the military and not doing what ordinary policemen did?
MR BARNARD: No, I don't think that we could do what we wanted, we still had our Commanders who drew a line. I worked under a Commander and I couldn't just do what I wanted to. What we did, he knew of. If there were problems, I think that he would have corrected us, that we shouldn't do things like that, but I couldn't just go on my own and do what I wanted to.
ADV GCABASHE: No, you see those were general propositions that included all of the people in the Security Branch, that included your Commanders, so you were saying that as you understood your tasks, and the tasks of all your seniors and juniors, you could essentially bend the rules whenever it suited your particular purposes?
MR BARNARD: Chairperson, I never had to do with such cases, this was the first time with these two incidents, that I became involved with such acts of terrorism, including insurgency and an action against insurgency. Previously I had nothing to do with this and what took place here and that is where my ideas were formulated which led to the affirmative answers that I have just given.
ADV GCABASHE: Tell me, what drew you to the Security Branch as opposed to the Detective Branch after doing your original stint in the Uniform Branch? Did you volunteer, I mean what made you move to Security matters rather than just ordinary policing matters, you the individual?
MR BARNARD: I was connected to the Railway Police in Durban and not the Police Services as it is known today, I was with the Railway Police and I had many friends in the Security Branch. In the beginning I had small tasks such as the collection of information from Trade Unions which as I regarded it, was a less serious job to do at the Security Branch. As time went by, one didn't want to stay in one place all the time, such as with the Uniform Branch, one wouldn't want to stay on the street all the time, one wanted to move up and that is how I became friends with my friends at the Security Branch and ultimately I saw that this was a direction that I wanted to follow and that is when I began at the Security Branch in Durban where we undertook security clearances and so forth and with time, I ended up at the Piet Retief Security Branch.
ADV GCABASHE: You are still in the Police Service, the Detective Branch, right now?
MR BARNARD: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: All those habits that you practised as members of the Security Branch, you in particular at the time, have you carried those over to the Detective Branch now?
MR BARNARD: No, I think after these incidents, my eyes have gone open and as I sit here today, I think that it was worth it. I am now with the Detective Branch and I am doing the work of a Detective, there are no more infiltrations or anything like that, and I am now at the level where I have and I feel that I have very good relations with the community.
ADV GCABASHE: And you actually are doing things differently as opposed to the way you did them in the past, there is a change in the manner in which you are doing things? There are no cover-ups, there are no lies, there are no - I am just trying to understand you, the individual, applying for amnesty now for acts in the past fair enough, but how those could possibly be translated to the future where you are now?
MR BARNARD: Yes, I am now in a position where I am second in command in the Detective Branch in Knysna and I have members who serve under me and there I cannot pursue the methods that we used at the Security Branch, I have to educate them so that they can become better police officers. I think of it as the start of my police career.
ADV GCABASHE: Okay, fair enough, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising? Thank you Mr Barnard, that then concludes your testimony, you may stand down.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: I see that it is now past four o'clock, this would then be a convenient time to adjourn and will nine o'clock be convenient again? Thank you, we have come to the end of today's hearing and we will adjourn until tomorrow, the same venue, at nine o'clock in the morning, thank you.
MS LOCKHAT: All rise.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
