Pretoria - Businessman George Barkhuizen, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife Odette in 2015, is a free man after the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, overturned his murder and fraud convictions on appeal.
Barkhuizen was convicted of murdering Odette when she drove out of the Oakdene business premises on June 11. She was shot in her car.
The reason given by the prosecution for the murder was that Barkhuizen wanted to cash-in on an R7.5 million insurance payout.
He was convicted of fraud, illegal possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition.
The fraud allegations were that he took out three separate life insurance policies worth R7.5m on behalf of Odette. The State alleged that he forged her signature and paid the premiums.
The State relied on circumstantial evidence to prove its case.
He was sentenced to life for the murder, 15 years for the “insurance fraud”, six years for the unlawful possession of a firearm and two more years for the unlawful possession of ammunition.
Odette was found shot dead near her offices in Moffat View, Johannesburg, in what police initially believed was another bungled hijacking.
Barkhuizen earlier argued, through his lawyer, advocate Sita Kolbe, that the “theory” that he killed his wife was originally provided to the investigation team by forensic consultant and private investigator, Paul O'Sullivan.
The court earlier heard that Barkhuizen and his wife had marital problems and that they were seeking a divorce.
The State called numerous witnesses during the trial to testify about their stormy relationship.
Acting Judge Peet Johnson, concurred with by two other judges, now on appeal, that the State doggedly pursued its case by calling witnesses about the strained relationship so that the court would believe that Barkhuizen had killed his wife.
The judge raised his concern as to how the trial court could have concluded that Barkhuizen was the one who had shot his wife, while an eyewitness testified that Barkhuizen was not at the scene.
The judge said that the trial court ignored the fact that there was direct evidence regarding the murder by way of the eyewitness, but the court only sought to rely on circumstantial evidence.
Judge Johnson further said the trial court ignored the statement which the eyewitness had made to the police. In his statement he said he saw a black man wearing a tracksuit standing next to the car of the victim, with a firearm in his hand. The gunman was described as slender.
Judge Johnson said Barkhuizen was not black nor slender. The eyewitness also knew Barkhuizen well and said he could recognise him from a distance.
The judge also mentioned that, surprisingly, the eyewitness’s statement was changed under suspicious circumstances. He then told police that he was at work that day when he heard a shot go off. He went outside and saw the victim’s car. Another shot went off and he saw a person with a black hoodie standing next to the car.
In this statement he said he could not see whether it was a man or a woman as he did not have a clear vision.
“The haste and carelessness with which the second statement was changed, is apparent. If one sees a shadow, the whole image is black. It is impossible to see if a shadow wears a black top or not,” the judge said.
Judge Johnson added that in the witness’s first statement, he was adamant that Barkhuien was not on the scene. After he changed his statement it was not ruled out that he was not on the scene.
The judge also questioned why the witness was not taken to task for making two different statements under oath.
He said the circumstances regarding the two statements were highly suspicious and needed scrutiny by the trial court.
Judge Johnson said it clearly did not suit the narrative of the investigating team that the first statement said the attacker was black. “That would have made it impossible to pin the murder on the accused,” he said.
Judge Johnson said he and the other two judges who presided over this appeal, simply cannot come to the same conclusions as the trial court.
Regarding the life policies, the judge said it appeared that Barkhuizen took out the policies for his and his wife’s protection. “If it was planned to kill her for the life policy benefit, one would not have expected him to also take out a policy where she was a beneficiary in the event of his death.”
In upholding Barkhuizen’s appeal, the judge said the trial court unfortunately also did not deal with this aspect.
Pretoria News