MR KAHANOVITZ
Mr van Zyl, I read your evidence carefully in the S v Barnard case.  You failed to tell the Court that using Mr Barnard was off limits, that he was a persona non grata.  In fact, you made up a different version entirely at page 1844, line 20.
	You were being asked in-chief about whether Mr Barnard was connected to the CCB at the time that you decided to make use of his services.  Now the question that is put to you is -
"... did you after this determine whether he was still attached to the CCB, after the death of Dr Webster?"
	Then you say -
"... Your Worship, I did.  And to place this in context for you, I used Ferdi on a specific project to help me in Cape Town, and the first time I used him was towards the end of March 1989 and at that stage the accused informed me that he was still attached to the CCB, but that he was basically placed on an inactive list, because he would go and execute his tasks outside the country."
	Then you are asked -
"... Mr van Zyl, I first want to get the date, you say March 1989 ...",
	and so on and so forth and then you change, you correct the evidence and you say -
"... no, it was in July."
	Then at line 10 on page 1845  you are asked -
"... when you used him at that stage, this is July, August, September, do you know whether he was still involved with the CCB, did he tell you anything"?
	Then you say -
"... no Your Lordship, at that stage, over and above the involvement with me, it was my impression as a result of what he told me, that he was placed on an inactive list in anticipation of his further instructions to go and work outside the country."
	Question then -
"... Did you then deduce that the CCB would use him outside the country?  That is correct.  Did you ask him in which ways they would use him?  No, Your Lordship."
	Now, that evidence is entirely untrue, do you agree with me?