MR WESSELS
Be that as it may I would like to read to you from the judgment given by Judge Els.  Chairperson it is Volume G, page 62, the Judge refers to WPJ Smit, better known as Willy Smit, who testified that he met the accused in the mid-eighties.  That he himself, in 1987 worked at ACA Insurance and that the accused also worked there for a period of two to three months.  He states that it was during 1988.
"When the accused left ACA Insurance he told Smit that he would be working for the Security Police and that he was going to monitor activists primarily.  During February the witness began his own business by the name of Profsure.  The accused regularly visited the new business and on an ad hoc basis did work for Smit.  The accused and the accused's brother, Calla Barnard..."
and it is not Calla Botha, but Calla Barnard who is your brother.....
"...visited him one evening.  He said it was during one and two in the morning and they told him that they were busy monitoring a certain Mr White, the complainant with Charge 3, and that they had then been taken in by the Security Police.  The accused state that they wanted to take out Mr White as well.  The accused asked the witness if he was aware of Dr Webster's death and told him that he, the accused, had shot Dr Webster."
Smith testifies -
"They told me that it had been one of their instructions, among others, to take out Mr White as well and that Mr White had been a personal friend of Dr Webster's."
At a certain stage after Colonel J Smit asked the witness, Smit, this is now Willy Smit, the accused again came to him and once again repeated that he had shot Dr Webster.  He then testifies as follows:
"Your Lordship he told us this various times.  It was general knowledge.  He told this to anyone who wanted to listen.  He said that he had shot Dr Webster.  On another occasion the accused stated that he had shot Webster with a shotgun.  On an occasion Smit made a statement to W/O Rossouw, as he was then, who was the detective regarding the death of Dr Webster.  The following day, the accused's brother, Calla Barnard and the father of the accused visited him, Smit, and requested him to make a statement in which he would state that everything he had previously told Rossouw was really hearsay and that he didn't have any personal knowledge of the facts that he gave to Rossouw.  Later he made a statement with the objective of the Webster post mortem inquest and what is contained in there is the truth.  The statement was made on the 16th of October 1992 and on the 28th of October 1992 he testified during the Webster post mortem inquest.  He stated that what he said on the 28th of October 1992 in evidence was the truth.
		On the following day he was placed under cross-examination by Advocate or attorney Pietie du Plessis who appeared on behalf of the accused and Calla Botha during the post mortem inquest.  During cross-examination there was an adjournment at approximately 11 o'clock that morning.  During the adjournment a certain Mr Mouton approached him and asked him how it was possible that he, Smit, could testify against a fellow Afrikaner.  Mouton also said to him that he was busy playing with his family's future.  (This is the family of the witness).  He understood that his children could be harmed.  During that time Smit was having an extra-marital affair with his secretary.  Mouton asked Smit whether his wife was aware of this extramarital affair and when he responded in the negative Mouton informed him that Attorney Pietie du Plessis would disclose this directly after the adjournment in court.  He asked Mouton what he was supposed to do, upon which Mouton stated that he should deny everything that he had testified to at that stage and that it would be the easiest way for Smit to escape the situation.  Smit's advocate, Adv H de Vos requested an adjournment of a few days from the court.  This request was refused and the cross-examination of Smit by Attorney du Plessis was continued.  Upon everything that Attorney du Plessis then put to him he stated "I concede" or he confirmed what was put to him although it was completely in contradiction with his original evidence."
Do you recall this Mr Barnard?