‘Barney trial’ postponed over Section 204 witness dispute

NORTHERN Cape High Court Judge Almé Stanton is expected to deliver judgment when the “Barney trial” resumes next month, after the defence objected to an application for a Section 204 witness to be granted indemnity on certain charges in the multi-accused ‘Hollanders’ gang case.

The witness began testifying in the Northern Cape High Court about drug deals that allegedly took place from his flat in Alice Court.

It is alleged that the accused intended to kill him, although they did not succeed. The incident took place at the Roodepan flats on June 17, 2021, when the accused allegedly fired a hail of bullets at the block of flats, which was “full of residents” at the time.

The accused – George “Barney” Peters, Britney Arends, Stephanie McAnda, Simone Rose, Chinaaz Mentoor, Abigail van Wyk, Chane Adams, Michael Peters, Clive Peters, Deon May, Pamerston Mentoor, Henry Blom, Vincent Rosen, Tshepo Malambi, Nico Hofuza and Shawn Smith – are facing 117 charges. These include murder, attempted murder, gang activity, illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, discharge of a firearm in a built-up area, public violence, money laundering, racketeering, defeating the ends of justice, assault, kidnapping, fraud and dealing in drugs.

Defence attorney Moetleetsi Mogwera said they were caught by surprise by the application.

“We don’t know what offences the Section 204 witness was found guilty and convicted of, or which charges he wishes to be discharged from, or whether another court should review the matter. The defence needs to prepare if there is any evidence that may affect our clients,” Mogwera stated.

Advocate Renier Pieterse added that the matter should be disclosed in advance and not raised during the trial.

State advocate Jacque Rosenberg pointed out that a Section 204 witness could not receive indemnity for a crime for which he had already been convicted.

He also invited “Barney” to rejoin court proceedings if he agreed to behave himself.

Peters was recently ordered out of the court and the trial continued in his absence after repeated outbursts, emotional pleas, and defiance led Judge Stanton to remove him for disrupting proceedings.

Advocate Vasiliki Patrinos, representing Peters, informed the court that her client did not wish to be present.

"He is satisfied that I represent him in court. I had a long conversation with my client, and I am busy solving the challenges regarding him seeing his children, with [assistance from] paralegals from Legal Aid South Africa,” Patrinos said.

The case will continue on November 3.