MR WESSELS
No that may be so that it didn't happen like that, but it doesn't have to be that they should remain present and carry on as if it is a trial and dispute all matters.  It now becomes a relevant point.  Can Mr Barnard be believed in everything he says?  Now what does one use to test Mr Barnard's evidence?  I have now been instructed on behalf of Mr Luitingh's has filed an affidavit wherein he says Mr Barnard is lying.  Is Mr Luitingh to be believed and Mr Barnard's evidence rejected because someone else has now come and said something different to him?  Has Mr Barnard discharged the onus to show on the probabilities that his version is true and Mr Luitingh's version is not true?  It becomes an impossible situation if you apply the test as if there's an onus or proof to be required on the balance of probabilities, as argued by Mr Bizos.
	The difficulty with Mr Barnard's evidence is further, he has given a version which in many respects is probably nonsense.  For instance the so-called nails attached to the bomb, where van Zyl told him there were four kilograms of nails attached to the bomb.  That was his evidence initially and it is my submission he heard about this nail business here because it was raised in cross-examination I think by Mr Bizos, there was some speculation in that regard.  Mr Barnard latched onto that to get back at Mr van Zyl for putting him away for ten years, but then not long after he gave this ridiculous version, it struck him that if that sticks, his "bloedbroer" Kalla Botha is now going to be in trouble because Kalla Botha was the one who planted the bomb.  Then he changed that very opportunistically to say no, but he spoke to Botha about that and Botha told him that Slang van Zyl is talking nonsense, the instruction from Gen Webb was that nobody was to be injured.  Botha repudiated that version in his evidence.  It's probably clear that Barnard can't be believed on that issue, so if he can't be believed on that particular issues, how has he then now discharged the onus as set out in Ganey where a court must be able to place absolute reliance on the credibility of a witness in the absence of probabilities, because in my submission the probabilities are equal, it's black and white, how can you say the one is correct and the other one not?
	Mr Chairman, these are just illustrations of the minefield, if I may use that word, that you will find yourself in if the Legislature intended the test to be  proof on a balance of probabilities.
	There are many aspects of criticism against Mr Barnard.  It's not relevant or necessary for me to deal with that.  It was put to him in his cross-examination and one may ask, but why did I cross-examine him extensively if it wasn't relevant and it wasn't relevant in these proceedings and I cross-examined him purely to get on record his version so that anyone else who reads the record afterwards can make up his mind as to whether there should follow any further proceedings in regard to Webster or not, but strictly speaking, all his evidence about Webster, is irrelevant for the purposes of this Committee.
	Mr Chairman, applying that, the procedure that is here, is according to my learned friend Mr Bizos, an inquisitorial procedure, he says that doesn't carry an onus, but at the same time he suggests that there must be proof on a balance of probabilities.  Now that's a contradiction in terms, you cannot have that.
	Mr Chairman, applied to the dispute between Verster and Webb, we have the versions, Mr Bizos says both these witnesses are unreliable, but he wants Webb to be believed in regard to authority.  Now with submission, you can't have your cake and eat it as well.