CHAIRPERSON: For purposes of the record it is Wednesday 27th January 1999. It is the continuation of the amnesty application of Mr Bellingan. The panel and appearances are as indicated on the record previously.

Mr Bellingan, you are still under oath.

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman.

Right Mr Bellingan, we ended your evidence yesterday where you testified that you had returned to Pietermaritzburg or to Durban and thereafter to Pietermaritzburg after the murder and that you were at the house of your sister, Judy White, and we stopped just before you were notified of the murder. Could you just deal with whatever happened after the murder in the house of your sister and thereafter? Just deal with that specific day, the Saturday, first.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, a telephone call came through to say that either that I should come back to Pretoria or that I should get in touch with my immediate supervisor, I can't recall exactly what it was. There were some telephone calls made. I spoke to Colonel Oosthuizen shortly thereafter. We had a brief conversation wherein he said that I should get back to Pretoria as quickly as possible, to at least take the first available flight back, get back as quickly as possible.

I then did not wish to show any nervousness so I asked my sister to phone home as it was quite obvious to me what the matter was about. My sister said that in fact she could not get through, the telephone had been put down, there was a strange voice that had answered, the phone was put down. So I then telephoned and spoke to the domestic servant, Lydia Kubeka who stated that Janine was dead. The full realisation of what I had done hit me. The operational state of mind was then overwhelmed by my personal emotions about the matter. I broke down.

From there on arrangements were basically made by my family to get back to Johannesburg and I in fact flew back to Jan Smuts at I think it was 5 o'clock on Saturday.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright and when you arrived at Jan Smuts, who was there to meet you?

MR BELLINGAN: At Jan Smuts Airport Mr Chairman to meet me was a friend of mine, a Mr Core, Tony Core, Colonel Oosthuizen, Colonel Derick Botha and Captain Deon Els. I remember those three, there may have been more I can't recall.

MR DU PLESSIS: And where did you go after they met you at the airport?

MR BELLINGAN: My sister who was with me went with Tony to my home. I went with Colonel Oosthuizen to a safe house and at the safe house, called Casino, the other colleagues that were at the airport met us again over there.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright Mr Bellingan now where was the safe house?

MR BELLINGAN: It was in Midrand Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: And why did you have to go to a safe house?

MR BELLINGAN: In preparation, Mr Chairman, I believed for the fact that the investigating officer would be obviously approaching me and that I should basically get my act together.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did these officers say anything or ask you anything about your possible involvement with the murder, can you remember?

MR BELLINGAN: No none of them said anything about that to me expect Colonel Oosthuizen who just said to me that I was suspected and that I should be careful. That was all.

MR DU PLESSIS: Would you regard as normal practice in a situation such as this to have taken you to a safe house?

MR BELLINGAN: For the Security Branch yes, not generally for the police force, Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right let me rephrase the question. If you had performed a Security Branch operation would that have been the normal action that would have been taken after such an operation?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman but there was no other particular reason.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright now what was your subjective view or your thoughts on what the others who had picked you up at the airport thought about your possible involvement. Can you say anything about that or can't you?

MR BELLINGAN: I automatically assumed that they would assist me with a cover-up of the operation.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright and what happened at the safe house?

MR BELLINGAN: I spoke to some of my colleagues for some length of time then a minister of religion from the South African Police was brought through to the safe house to speak to me and he did that for a very long time and thereafter the investigating officer came to interview me.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright Mr Bellingan, I think there was evidence that your kids were eventually placed in your custody that night, is that right?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman. My two children were at a very late stage brought through and thereafter I went home.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright now Mr Bellingan, we don't have to go into detail about the investigation except for purposes of the next application, Schedule 21, the actions after Janine's murder. I would like to deal with that separately. Before we do that can you turn to page 429 please of Bundle 1, that is your application. You have elaborated now in detail on the second last paragraph on page 429, the fact that you staged a burglary and killed Janine. We have gone through that evidence now. Could you deal with the last paragraph on page 429 please?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, inside the envelope which I recovered under the car seat was also a list of names and codenames of operatives and some car registration numbers, details of some projects and names of some sources and agents. There was also a list of some activities I'd been involved in for example the arson at Wits University, the Khotso House incident, the real details of the Numsa matter as well as a note concerning a request that I be considered for cooperation with the ANC in terms of revealing what information I knew in terms in return for indemnity from action against me.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright can you deal with the first paragraph on page 430 please?

MR BELLINGAN: My colleagues know that it is I that committed the murder. At no stage did anyone in the South African Police rebuke me for the deed. General Erasmus said that I should keep quiet and bide my time. The investigating officer was harassed for prying too much into the case. There was also much covering up. I understood this to be condonation.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright Mr Bellingan, could we perhaps - and Mr Chairman, I think it would be prudent to deal here in any event with the evidence pertaining to the last schedule as it falls into the chronological order so the evidence in respect of the last schedule I'll present now as part of the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes please do that Mr du Plessis.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Now Mr Bellingan, could we perhaps just elaborate on the first sentence there, "your colleagues knew it was you". Why do you say that, can you explain that to me?

MR BELLINGAN: From remarks made to me, Mr Chairman, for example Colonel Oosthuizen saying to me that I should be "wees versigtig, hulle praat later met jou" - "be careful, they will speak to you later". Others telling me "moenie betrokke raak" - "don't get involved", referring to the investigation. "Alles sal regkom" - "Everything will turn out fine" who were telling me that the investigating officer is having a hard time and then a little smile.

MR DU PLESSIS: Who were these people, can you remember?

MR BELLINGAN: Close colleagues Mr Chairman, I don't remember, it was over a period of time and it happened quite a lot. There were also offers to assist in terms of covering, in terms of alibi, etcetera, etcetera, people giving me advice.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, let us go into some detail in respect of that. Were there offers made in respect of covering up?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, tampering with evidence. Yes Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you give more details please?

MR BELLINGAN: I gained the impression that especially the forensic evidence that there was, was messed up, that the Numsa side of things was messed up and at a later stage I got a message supposedly from a - for I understood it, from a senior officer at Brixton Murder and Robbery to say that I shouldn't worry "Daar is geen saak nie" - "There is no case".

At a certain stage Colonel Oosthuizen also said to me that he was being suspected and had to do some explaining as to the missing forensics, for example he spoke to me about a hair that had - one of my hairs that had changed shape and size and colour etcetera, etcetera, on route to the forensic laboratory and that senior people, some Generals, had been forced to conduct an investigation into the tampering with forensic evidence.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Bellingan, we will get to that part of the record of the evidence at the inquest. I'm going to refer you to that where Major Steyn, investigating officer, testified that a hair that was picked up by him at the window which was a red hair which he thought was yours, eventually became a hair of your deceased wife?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is it this what you are testifying about?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, later on I realised that must be what the complaint was at that specific time. Later on there was an issue of another hair which I'd heard had been introduced to the crime scene and that was a negroid hair.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, do you know anything about this hair?

MR BELLINGAN: In fact, sorry Mr Chairman, it wasn't introduced to the crime scene, it was introduced to the evidence from the crime scene at a later stage.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright Mr Bellingan did you ever have personal knowledge of tampering with evidence? Were you involved with tampering of evidence?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I personally Mr Chairman other than obstructing the truth from emerging. I personally never touched any of the evidence in terms of after the commission of the offence.

MR DU PLESSIS: And what were your perceptions and what did you think about all these things that were said to you by your colleagues and the question of tampering with evidence. What was your view pertaining to that?

MR BELLINGAN: It was very clear to me that nothing at all would come of the case Mr Chairman, that there was no evidence and what evidence there was could be explained. For example another thing was, just after the murder in fact I had a conversation with Colonel Oosthuizen at my house about the shoes and the paint marks on the shoes and he pointed out to me that most likely there would be paint marks on many of my shoes and I should mention that to Brixton Murder and Robbery. In fact I never mentioned that because they did not come back to me and speak to me about that but I certainly would have mentioned it and I went and put some paint marks on some of the shoes thereafter thinking that it was perhaps a good idea.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right Mr Bellingan and you have already testified that you did not testify the truth at the inquest or at the trial, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman, I did not tell the truth at the inquest or at the trial.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you also did not tell the truth in any of the statements that you made, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright and then you say here the investigation officer was harassed for prying too much into the case. Have you heard or do you know of any specific examples of him being harassed?

MR BELLINGAN: Phone calls to him Mr Chairman amongst others by Colonel Oosthuizen as this is as Willie Steyn told me that he had told him that he knows he's at the bank looking into the Numsa things etcetera, etcetera. That Willie Steyn was having a hard time in general and that Willie Steyn also complained to me at a certain point in time and I assured him that it was not I who was harassing him and it was not I, Mr Chairman. I know that he was also allowed to go on a wild goose chase in believing that the Numsa operation was - a certain friend of mine was involved in the operation and that was fine, I allowed him to continue with that line because this friend of mine had absolutely nothing at all to do with it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, insofar as I am presenting hearsay evidence here, this evidence forms part of the inquest record to which I will refer just now and Mr Steyn will be called as a witness in these proceedings.

Now Mr Bellingan was anything mentioned to you, do you know anything about the dockets of the Numsa investigation which disappeared?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, in the Eastern Cape dockets had disappeared. In the particular investigation into the Numsa matter with which I was involved directly I know that nothing was coming of the case. I also heard that the commercial branch in Pretoria was an ex-Security Branch officer who was working there was assisting with some of the cover ups.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you remember who that was?

MR BELLINGAN: I was told that it was a Major Bernie Lay, I don't know whether that is true or not, I personally never had dealings with a Major Lay in respect of these particular matters although I was friendly with him.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr Bellingan, do you know anything of threats received by Major Willie Steyn during his investigation received by him, death threats in respect of him and his family?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes I've heard that he had been threatened not to pry into the case.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right, were you responsible for any of those threats?

MR BELLINGAN: Not at all Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Bellingan now you say in the last sentence"

MR BELLINGAN: Sorry can I just add there I was of course indirectly responsible but I did not perpetrate those actions.

MR DU PLESSIS: You say you understood this to be condonation. Can you just explain a little bit better to the Committee what you mean by that?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman this murder was necessary for the covering up of a number of activities. I believed that senior people would know immediately that it was I who did this and that had they had a particular problem with it they would have confronted me about it immediately. Had they felt that I had correctly used my discretion then they would cover up the matter.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did anybody ever - of the Security Branch, ever directly confront you and ask you if it was you who committed this murder?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright can we deal with ...[intervention]

MR BELLINGAN: It's quite obvious that they knew it was me.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you deal with the second paragraph, page 430?

MR BELLINGAN: After I left the Security Branch in 1993, August, due to post-traumatic stress, an inquest was held which was in fact early the following year in 1994. After my first day's testimony, after I had committed myself to denial of the murder as well as any involvement in certain covert activities, Colonel Piesang Nel brought me an indemnity form to sign. He told me that nobody could arrest me thereafter should anything happen.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you believe him?

MR BELLINGAN: Absolutely Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, the next paragraph you have actually already dealt with already. Do you want to add anything to the fact that General Erasmus said the investigation would be messed up?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I'd like to add something to this other paragraph first.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, please go ahead?

MR BELLINGAN: Prior to the inquest Colonel Oosthuizen had told me that it wasn't necessary for me to attend the inquest and that I would do better to in fact stay away from it. I discussed the problem then of obtaining all of the evidence and what would be said there, etcetera, etcetera, and he was in agreement that I should tape record the proceedings. I then proceeded to make the necessary arrangements. I asked him whether he would make a tape recorder available to me despite the fact that I was out of the Security Branch at that stage. He said yes but I never did go and collect the tape recorder from him, I used a friend of mines and in fact did send someone to tape record the proceedings. People just presumed in was a journalist because the tape recording did not come out clearly from the audience so we moved and sat closer to the front where the journalists were sitting.

When Colonel Nel met me that night at the Marlesol Restaurant at Bruma Lake and during our dinner that I presume the secret fund paid for, he said to me that Colonel Oosthuizen had asked for a report from me on who had said what at the inquest, etcetera, etcetera. Just a brief report and I said to him no problem, I would give him that. We then

made arrangements, he said he was going to the Cape to arrange for other people to sign indemnity forms and that he would be back that weekend and he told me the time of his flight returning from Cape Town and that could I perhaps meet him at the airport and then hand this report to him which I subsequently did. I met Colonel Piesang at the airport. It was an evening, if I remember correctly, that weekend, Friday, Saturday or Sunday evening or late afternoon. I believe he had stayed on a little bit longer in Cape Town perhaps for a rugby match, something like that, I can't recall exactly and I met him in the restaurant at the airport. We sat down, had some coffee, gave him the report and we just talked in general and then I left, went back. This was of course prior to the testimony of some of my colleagues including Colonel Oosthuizen. I think the next week they were called to testify.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, have you got anything to add to the next paragraph? That was the question.

MR BELLINGAN: After?

CHAIRPERSON: We've already dealt with this to an extent where General Erasmus said that the investigation will be messed up now. Is there anything that needs to be added there?

MR BELLINGAN: During one visit ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Anything relevant that is?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't think so Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Good.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right, can we deal with the last paragraph please?

MR BELLINGAN: This was subsequently done, the investigating officer Willie Steyn can explain about that. He might also recall a comment made to me, that he made to me in January 1993, to the effect that I was taking the rap for senior people, that is what he said, I did not answer him obviously. I gained the impression then also that he was just fishing.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright Mr Bellingan, from page 431 to page 439 there are certain findings made after the inquest and certain conclusions drawn from the evidence. Now it is not necessary for us to go into everything in respect of that, I want to refer you perhaps specifically to page 438. Mr Chairman, I will rely on the rest in argument, it's not necessary to read to you the findings.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I would appreciate that, it is part of the papers, the conclusions that the inquest court came to so I don't think there's any need for your client to read it out to us.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Bellingan, just the second paragraph, it says"

Now the motive which you have testified about for the killing of your wife. You have testified that it related that the evidence that she had. Can you elaborate on your motive from that point of view and specifically deal with the question if you would have done this if there wasn't the question in your marriage of the sensitive information that you wife had and the threats that she made to expose that evidence?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I wanted to prevent Janine from exposing information on the covert activities of the Security Branch. I did not also want to be in a position where I would be forced to go against any of my colleagues and I also felt that I should be loyal to the National Party. I also very aware of the fact that certain agreements had been signed, negotiations were vitally important in that point in time and that there were going to be a lot more probes and investigations into the activities of the intelligence community and that had Janine put me on centre spot over there, I would have been forced to make certain revelations about mine and my colleagues activities and not only that, Mr Chairman, at the time there was discussions about the beginning of the formal talks which were referred to as Codessa One. These things were vitally important for the transformation Mr Chairman, for the survival of people in this country.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Bellingan, you set out your political motivations from page 441 and I just want you to confirm what is stated in your applications from 441 to page 444 please? This gives the background of the whole situation of the Security Branch which we have testified about, the fact that you were loyal to the cause and the whole background situation in respect of secret operations and covert operations. We don't have to go into that detail. Right up to the last paragraph of page 444 do you confirm that is correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, I'd like to just add that it was important that the negotiations and the reform process be accelerated and finalised as clear as possible specifically to avoid too much scratching into the activities of the estate otherwise the government would have lost total credibility.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, start with the last paragraph of 444 and then over to page 445, can we deal with that please.

MR BELLINGAN: It became clear to me on various occasions that Janine had abused the position of trust that she had regarding myself and regarding my colleagues and her access to information. It also became clear to me that she intended to fully exploit the position to gain an advantage and to hit out at the Security Branch which by that time she hated. It is easier to deal with a physical threat such as terrorism and sabotage than such an insidious one. To my knowledge and belief, no mechanism existed to assist me to deal with this problem. I had already tried sacrificing my career without the desired effect. I refer there Mr Chairman to the time when I was willing to leave and go and work at Standard Brass, Iron and Steel. The only thing left to do was to act decisively. Janine's actions put her into the category of a threat to past operations and existing ones as well as the supporter of the liberation struggle.

In reaction to Janine deciding to go all the way, I believed that the only way to silence her was to eliminate her. My behaviour was not motivated by some or other irrelevant personal factor. I believed that Janine had to be stopped for political reasons. At the very most my judgement may have been slightly effected by the accumulated stress of my work and the fact that it was a desperate situation. I say that my actions promoted the interests of the Security Branch and the National Party.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Bellingan can we just stop there? If there was not - if the situation in respect of her knowledge of the Security Branch operations did not exist, if it was only your marriage relationship which you had to consider, would you ever have considered killing your wife?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman not at all.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did your marriage relationship with her have anything to do with your decision to kill her and I mean the personal relationship you had with her?

MR BELLINGAN: Only in the sense that it exacerbated the situation. I never had access to normal support structures in the sense of having the opportunity to go to her brother or her parents and saying to them could you please help out over here. There was no such possibility and I could not control Janine, so in that sense, only in that sense Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright Mr Bellingan then do you confirm the rest from page 445 to page 447?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes I do Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright and then the Afrikaans part in page 447, just to make this clear Mr Chairman, this is a general motivation in respect of the elimination really of activists and it was included in each clients' application that I act for. Just some of the allegations here may not be as relevant to this specific situation. We have faced previously problems in cross-examination with this because it is really a general background from the security force point of view of the whole situation, it may not be necessarily relevant, some of the points made here to this specific application and I would appeal to you and my learned friends to take that into account during cross-examination has been a problem previously.

Mr Bellingan, you have read this Afrikaans part as a general background to the reasons why activists were eliminated. Does that confirm with your view and your knowledge of such acts executed by the security forces?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright and then page 453 you deal with the question of orders and approval. Now it is true that you never received a specific order to commit this murder, is that right?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright you have testified about your views on this which you formed especially in respect of actions after the murder. The documents you referred to here we don't have to go in detail into these documents Mr Bellingan, some of them we have done previously in respect of the Numsa matter. Suffice it would be sufficient to ask you, do you confirm this and what role did these documents play in your views on the authorisation that you though you had when you committed the murder? These documents played a very big role Mr Chairman. These documents are indirect orders because they formed part of my training, they formed part of the way that I was expected to react and to respond.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, maybe just to refer to the most important part of this page, page 455, this in an excerpt from a document "Trade Craft" which was given to you at Daisy Farm. The last two points made there on page 455 can you deal with please?

MR BELLINGAN: The quotation on page 31 of the document reads:

On page 33 the quote reads:

MR DU PLESSIS: Right Mr Bellingan, did you regard your actions - or in what light did you regard your actions with reference to the counter-revolutionary strategy of the security forces?

MR BELLINGAN: As forming part of that - part and parcel of that Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right and then Mr Bellingan we have dealt with your evidence pertaining to Schedule 21 on page 463, we don't have to deal with anything further except to ask you do you confirm the political objectives and the other information provided there from page 465 until page 474?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman I do.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, Mr Bellingan has provided me with a further document expanding a little bit on his political motivation. May I beg leave to hand this document up to you and I suggest it be marked Exhibit C.

...End of tape Side 1

...[inaudible] to the Committee shortly what is the relevance of Operation Vula and what did you want to say here without reading everything?

do you have any questions?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, basically just that the mind set of a certain faction within the National Liberation Front at the time was still one of seizure of power and not one of going through the negotiation process. So despite signing the agreements with the National Party, the National Liberation Front, certain sectors wanted to continue with violence, wanted to continue to make life difficult for the security forces and they were fully intent on continuing to build arms caches and to conduct illegal intelligence activity.

ADV GCBASHE: Mr Bellingan, I don't want to lose the trend of what you're saying. You speak of National Liberation Front, the paragraph itself refers to the ANC. I'm not sure if you're talking about a liberation front within the ANC or you're talking about something totally different. It's just a new term to me in the context of South African politics. Just help me through that before you go any further?

MR BELLINGAN: It was the broad grouping Mr Chairman which was represented by the ANC/SACP Cosatu Alliance. It included people such as the present head of the armed forces, General Sipiwe Nyanda. It included people such as ...[intervention]

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry just for - again I don't want to rush you. Are you talking about the ANC and it's allies or are you talking about ANC and the PAC?

MR BELLINGAN: And it's allies yes.

ADV GCABASHE: That's all I wanted to know.

MR BELLINGAN: I understand. Mr Chairman, the reason why I use the terminologies because it's terminology used in the Vula document itself. The letters NLF I'm sure appear in here - NLM - National Liberation Movement. You'll see it on page 3 Mr Chairman so it is referred to in the documents but just by way of explaining what it is without having to read through the whole document, I used the term in that sense although it is not in the first paragraph. Thank you for pointing it out Mr Chairman., so I refer to the ANC and radical allies who were not only - who were not intent on the negotiation process.

The document was an indication to me that we had to be particularly careful because the intelligence operatives involved with these matters in the opposition would be scratching for information about the Security Branch in order to foment violence in the country, in order to prevent the negotiations and then even if this information had come to the attention of the so called Doves, those that were quite intent on the negotiation process going through, they still would have been able to gain a completely unfair strategic advantage at the very best. At the very best.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright Mr Bellingan, then you deal on page 6 of this document, paragraph 4, the last paragraph, can you just deal with that?

MR BELLINGAN: Sorry can I just add Mr Chairman that I insert some of the quotations for an indication that we did model our actions along the lines of other intelligence organisations as well as the opposition and they also speak her about the sensitivity of family matters etcetera, etcetera. I just mention it as well in the document itself.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, page 6, paragraph 4, the last paragraph on page 6.

MR BELLINGAN: I say: "I had no doubt that the ANC treated traitors very harshly, usually they were liquidated. In this regard it should be borne in mind that we were encouraged to use the methods of the enemy." I quote:

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you have any knowledge of traitors of the Security Branch who had been eliminated at that time for that reason?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, there were quite a few going back to the Smit family and then in particular surrounding the Harmse Commission there was an ex-colleague of mine, Brian Ngulunga, there was the pursuit of Dirk Coetzee and the resultant death of Beki Mbangene, the attorney that worked at Cheedle, Thompson and Huyson. There was some askaris that were liquidated as it were. There were others as well Mr Chairman that ...[intervention]

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Bellingan, there's been evidence before the Truth Commission of similar such incidents such as the killing of Motasi and his wife, the policeman, as well as evidence has already been presented about the incident of Brian Ngulunga.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr Heering, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes a colleague of mine, Jacques Hefter has applied for amnesty for the Hammanskraal matter that the Advocate referred to.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright then page 7 paragraph 5, you have already actually dealt with that. Paragraph 6 - can you deal with the second paragraph of paragraph 6 of page 7?

MR BELLINGAN: In the course of the year I had been involved in counter-espionage investigations for example during an operation at a Johannesburg D.I.S. office. Sensitive information emanating from our Johannesburg surveillance unit emerged. I spent considerable effort to trace the perpetrator including the polygraph test which I had introduced into the Security Branch. What had happened Mr Chairman is that during a breaking into one of the ANC offices in Johannesburg documentation was uncovered which could only have come from someone at the surveillance unit so the idea was then for me to trace who that could have been. Such investigations focused on the security establishments, especially after the Inkatha great scandal broke in July 1991. Then in order to appease Mr Nelson Mandela, the government appointed the Khan Commission and secrecy was by then an obsession.

MR DU PLESSIS: Could you please carry on, on page 8?

MR BELLINGAN: I was involved in investigations inter alia into Rashied who was responsible for the '83 Pretoria blast. Brian, Security Branch agent suspected of leading the material which led to the Inkathagate scandal. Guy, a Security Branch agent suspecting of walking over.

MR DU PLESSIS: You refer to three tapes. Can you just tell the Committee what tapes these are?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, they're tape recordings of these people's telephones from around that time period, middle of 1991.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman we are in possession of those tape recordings, that's not really relevant for purposes of this application but I just mentioned that to be hundred percent complete in everything we're presenting to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: If anybody of the TRC is interested in the tape recordings they are available.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and any of the parties. We certainly are not at this stage.

MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

Alright can you carry on please Mr Bellingan.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, can I just correct an error over here? The in brackets (after Brian) it says Security Branch agent. That should be - he was a full time member of the staff in fact, he was not an agent in the sense of being an agent.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright please carry on?

MR BELLINGAN: All of these types of investigation had an effect on me in that secrecy was of paramount importance and I was not going to be responsible for the government's plans being jeopardised. In early September the National Peace Accord was signed which paved the way for negotiations to begin in earnest. This also led to the Goldstone Commission ultimately in terms of investigations into so called scandals within the state ranks and the resultant spilling of the beans by our own personnel.

CODESSA in December 1991 would not have been possible if Janine had continued with her plans neither would the record of understanding have been signed if the ANC could not publicly trust the National Party.

MR DU PLESSIS: Are you sure of that date Mr Bellingan?

MR DU PLESSIS: December 1991?

MR BELLINGAN: I'm not sure of these dates Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right then the next page, page 9?

MR BELLINGAN: Political violence was very high in the era of negotiations and would have been higher had all of the Security Branch's dirty washing been exposed then. Both the National Party and the Security Branch had an enormous need for secrecy especially at this time of negotiations.

It is my further opinion that had Janine made the disclosures the settling of an election date, the granting of the Nobel Peace Prize to President de Klerk, the timeous finalisation of the interim constitution, the installing of the Transitional Executive Council and the suspension of the armed struggle by the PAC would not have occurred.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Bellingan, was that your personal subjective view at the time of the murder and thereafter?

MR BELLINGAN: Up to this paragraph it contains my subjective view at the time of the murder. This last paragraph I've just read now contains my opinion at a time I drew up this document Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright then Mr Bellingan, then you refer to documents we have already referred to in the last paragraph, you don't have to deal with it.

Mr Chairman if you will then just bear with me, the last aspect I want to deal with are certain excerpts of the evidence of the inquest. You will realise when I refer you to those parts of the evidence that I'm actually doing things with a two fold objective. First that is to point you to certain pages in the evidence which are of importance and then to ask Mr Bellingan how it fits in with his evidence and what his views are in respect of that evidence. I will try and be as quick as possible Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I'll appreciate that, perhaps just the most necessary for your purposes?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, if I can refer you to bundle 3.2 please which starts on page 240? Mr Chairman I'm going to refer to three main issues which are important for purposes of Mr Bellingan's evidence and his comments thereon. That relates firstly to his wife's disclosures made to other people, the condition of their marriage especially just before her death and then thirdly, her threats to expose sensitive information and then fourthly really the difficulty with the investigation. So there are really four issues but I'm going to deal with them right from the beginning to the end so I'm not going to deal with each incident in a separate subject.

Mr Bellingan the first person's evidence I want to deal with is Mr Bastiaan's, he was your neighbour is that right?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, page 241 he testified:

And he said "Yes."

And he was asked about the question if Janine had told him about your activities and he said:

and then on page 242 he testifies:

It says:

Now did you ever know that she told Bastiaans of these things that she gave Bastiaans information about your operations and do you want to comment at all on this?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman after the murder I was told the neighbours had some letters or something of that nature so at the first opportunity I had I spoke to Mr Bastiaans about that because we were on friendly terms, we were on speaking terms and he was pretty much an anti-trade union anti-ANC type of person so I did in fact try and find out what exactly he knew, that was after the murder.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you have any reason to doubt his evidence that was given at the inquest Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: No I have no reason to doubt this at all Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, then page 243, in the middle of the page he was asked if she had brought any documents to his house and he said:

Then he says:

Did you know that or did you only subsequently become aware of it?

MR BELLINGAN: I subsequently - Ron Bastiaans told me about that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright and then page 244?

ADV GCABASHE: Can I just ask, what did you get back from Bastiaans in that case if she had taken - if the wife had taken back the parcels your wife had left?

MR BELLINGAN: I got nothing back from Mr Bastiaans Mr Chairman, he had nothing, there was nothing that they had. The rumour from my office was incorrect.

MR DU PLESSIS: No but I think Mr Bellingan may I just clarify the question. From this evidence he testifies that he gave the goods back to your wife Janine, did you ever know about that?

MR BELLINGAN: No I never knew about that Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you know what was in these plastic bags and in the suitcase that he testified about?

MR BELLINGAN: I presume it was documentation which Janine returned to me after our holiday to the Transkei.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right and then page 244 he testified in the middle of the page:

Did you have such a discussion with him?

MR BELLINGAN: There was a discussion like that Mr Chairman. As I've said, my objective which I've never explained to anyone before was really to probe and see exactly what they knew, what they have, did they have any more documents. So it was in the light of that, that I was talking to Bastiaans about the sensitivity of the matters.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright and then can you turn to page 247 please? There the question was asked to Mr Bastiaans what the documents were about and he said in the first paragraph there:

And then the last sentence according to your statement she also apparently told you that Mr Bellingan had used several different names and he said yes, that was linked with the transaction that - banking. Did you know that your wife was talking loosely about these things to neighbours and all sorts of people?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes I knew Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right. Page 248 - I'm sorry, I marked it there but it only confirms the previous point. Page 249, the last three sentences, the question was:

"No."

"Did you ever see Mr Bellingan threaten her?"

"No."

Now Mr Bellingan, did you ever assault your wife before, before the murder?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright then page 251. The third paragraph there, it says:

"So she said she actually threatened to do so?"

"She threatened him, yes. She told us that she had

Do you want to comment on the threat part first?

MR BELLINGAN: Who she talking about, is this Bastiaans?

MR DU PLESSIS: This is what Bastiaans said, he testifies Mr Bellingan about the fact that your wife had said that she had threatened you to reveal evidence of your activities. Did she threaten you, do you agree with this?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that was in connection with after the visit to the lawyer and the discussions thereafter.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you ever say to her that you would kill her?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I never said that Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright you did however warn her that she was playing with fire? Could you turn to page 252?

MR BELLINGAN: Sorry Mr Chairman, that is just to point out to you further evidence on the question of the threat and then page 253:

Alright, do you want to add something to that Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes I believe that to be the case Mr Chairman. Page 254 is exactly the same kind of evidence, the first part of 254.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you want to say something about that?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright and then the same goes for the first part of page 257, you don't have to comment on that. Then the evidence of Mr Potter, page 260.

Mr Chairman, I may just mention that we have only a few pages of the record of the trial, only those pages attached to the petition and some of those pages are included in here. If necessary I will point out to you which pages contain the evidence at the inquest and which at the trial but I don't think it's important for purposes now, for these purposes. Mr Bellingan, page 262 Mr Potter, that's the brother of Janine, testified that she had told him that you were involved in something pertaining to the trade union Numsa, she mentioned the branch in Pretoria, she opened an exercise book and showed him hand written listing in the left hand column of drawers names and amounts and he testified that she had explained and talked to him about the whole Numsa incident. Did you ever know about this?

MR BELLINGAN: Not at the time Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: What is your view on the fact that she had spoken about this to her brother as well?

MR BELLINGAN: It was a massive security breach Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright page 261?

MR BELLINGAN: Confirms the evidence in that regard.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright and then page 263, the third paragraph there also refers to the discussion about fraudulent activities. Do you want to say anything about that?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright and then page 266 starts there with, in the middle of the page:

he refers to a statement of Mr Potter and he says:

And he used the word exposed. Can you just elaborate on that and explain to the court what you understand by your sister meaning "I want to expose him"? And then Mr Potter testified the second last paragraph, the sentence on the top:

Well that item I would just like to amend that word expose to the word blackmail, that was the word used. And then the last sentence:

Alright and the next page, page 267.

MR TRENGOVE: Mr Chairman, I really don't know what we're doing, my learned friend is reading selected passages from the inquest evidence. Now that may be a valuable exercise in argument but I really don't know why we should devote the hearing to that exercise?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes well that is true, I thought that what you had in mind was to refer to extracts from the inquest in respect of which your client had something to add and you seem to have asked him to comment on some of these things that you have quoted. Obviously you know if the purpose is simply to direct our attention to what is contained in the record I don't believe it's necessary at this stage to do that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I'm asking - the reason why I'm doing that I mentioned is twofold and I would obviously in the normal course of a normal civil trial will never do it this way but we are dealing with a Commission and we are dealing with a situation that is totally different. The reason why I'm doing this is twofold.

Firstly it is to ask Mr Bellingan his comments on that and how does this fit in with the actions that he took and the motive for those actions and subsequent vindication of what he knew at that stage which just supports exactly what he knew at that stage first.

Secondly it is to draw your attention to the fact that such evidence was presented at the inquest. Now Mr Chairman I don't know which witnesses will be called in these proceedings. I don't know if Mr Potter is going to be called, if Lorna Smith is going to be called or Mr Steyn is going to be called. I have decided to call Mr Steyn even though I requested a consultation with him through Mr Chaskalson and he refused to consult with me. I have decided to call Mr Steyn and I will put to Mr Steyn his evidence and seek his confirmation thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: I however Mr Chairman don't know if these other witnesses are going to be called.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we don't know either.

MR DU PLESSIS: And it is important to place this before you Mr Chairman at this stage of the proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no, Mr du Plessis, you see you yourself say it's an enquiry. We don't know what's going to happen, they might be called, they might not be called. It's not necessary for you at this stage to preempt that sort of vague possibilities. We are here to ensure that if there is a subsequent development in this hearing which necessitates your client to place further material before us or to deal with issues which you could reasonably not have anticipated would come up and of course you know you would be given that opportunity to do that but I don't think you should embark on a preemptive strike at this stage. Perhaps you should deal with the matter on the basis that this is before us, the record of the inquest and the selected portions from the trial that you've referred to. We have taken note of that. If your client can add anything substantial to this, certainly let him do that and that is what we were interested in, but as for the rest I think you know your client's interests would be protected if anything happens subsequently.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright Mr Chairman, the only point I want to raise in respect of this and sorry, I don't want to waste time is the question what the position pertaining to the evidence that was given at the inquest would be I intend relying on that evidence as corroboration and confirmation of my client's evidence. If I have an indication from you and from my opponents that the evidence at the inquest will be taken into account, can be taken into account and can be relied upon then I will desist from asking Mr Bellingan his opinions on that, I will present you with a page setting out the exact page references where certain evidence occurs and then I will rely on that. I at this stage don't know what the standing of what the record is and the position is and to what extent I will be allowed to place reliance on that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes well I think for the purposes of the testimony of your client at this stage because that's what we're interested in, on the face of it there appears no reason why you should be asking your client's opinions on the testimony that is here.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well Mr Chairman ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I had thought that what he was going to do was to add substantial material.

MR DU PLESSIS: He is going to yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Evidence to whatever has been dealt with in the inquest, whatever relevant aspects of the inquest, impact on our enquiry and he might be able to add testimony on that score. So perhaps you should try and do that at this stage so that we can get his testimony through and as for the status of the record and so on, that's stuff that relates to argument and so on. We can deal with that at the appropriate stage.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, I expected when I embarked on this exercise that if there was any problem with this evidence being placed before you that Mr Trengove would have immediately objected to it which didn't happen obviously so I accept from that point of view that there will not be any such objection but I understand what you're saying, I will leave that argument Mr Chairman and I will then just ask my client in respect of anything that he can have...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes we want to give you as much latitude as can be afforded in the circumstances so let him add anything that we haven't been provided with.

MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you. If you would then just bear with me Mr Chairman so that I can just deal with those issues that I think are important.

MR TRENGOVE: Mr Chairman, my learned friend is trying to box me into a position that I've never adopted.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR TRENGOVE: I have not objected because I've vacillated between the various ways of getting the evidence in chief done as quickly as possible, whether it is to object or rather just to bear it. As far as the evidence of the inquest is concerned we would certainly object to a selection being put before you in isolation. It may well be appropriate to place all the evidence before you and for all of us then to rely on it but we don't have a position in that regard at the moment and my learned friend shouldn't make any assumptions at all but reading it to his client who then responds that he didn't know about it doesn't make it any more admissible.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no I think ...[intervention]

MR DU PLESSIS: No that is true Mr Chairman, that's exactly - and that wasn't the intention to make it more admissible than it would have been

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and of course the interested parties' position of course is open on this, I don't think there's any misunderstanding.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman what I then will do if I will - if my learned friend has no objection, I will present him with that as well. I will provide you with a typed document referring to the exact pages and under specific four headings that I have referred you to now, which pages I would want to rely on eventually in argument. I will present that to you tomorrow for this purpose.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes we'll deal with that.

MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: I think let's try and get the testimony done.

MR WAGENER: Sorry may I come in at this moment in time?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Wagener?

MR WAGENER: While we're dealing with this document handed up by Mr du Plessis, may I request him to indicate who is the author of all the notes that we find on this document on many places like for instance I see here on page 271 someone wrote:

Now who would that be, who wrote this?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I don't know, certainly not me. Maybe Mr Bellingan can give me instructions on it.

Mr Chairman, Mr Bellingan informs me that some of the notes he hasn't gone through them, obviously it could have been written by him but this is a record of the inquest that was used by previous counsel at the trial so lots of people have made notes. It was too difficult to take the notes out Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Wagener, if it helps we certainly don't regard it as part of the record.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright then Mr Chairman if you'll just bear with me please?

Mr Bellingan, on page 270 there's reference that Mr Steyn had a discussion with Advocate Voleerus, do you know anything about that? Did you have a discussion with Mr Steyn about that?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Potter had a meeting with?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Bellingan, it's evidence of Mr Potter that he had a meeting with Mr Voleerus and he had discussed this with Mr Voleerus and he also had a similar discussion with Mr Steyn about this. Now the only question I'm asking is did Mr Steyn or Mr Potter ever speak to you about this, told you about this?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman not until - somewhere along the line I heard about it but I don't think either Mr Potter or in fact I'm certain Mr Potter didn't mention that to me.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, how does that Mr Bellingan fit in with your evidence pertaining to the cover up that you have testified about?

MR BELLINGAN: I was confident that Advocate Voleerus would be assisting us so whoever spoke to him, it was - I didn't have a perception that that was a problem.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr Bellingan, the threats that your wife Janine had made to you would you regard those threats along the same lines as Mr Potter's evidence?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes I think Mr Potter had it pretty much right, there was such matters between myself and my wife Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright now Mr Bellingan, Mrs Smith's evidence, Mrs Smith lived on a cottage on your property, is that correct, the same property?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: And did you ever know of the discussions Mrs Smith had with your wife Janine in respect of the Numsa incident and your actions?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I was aware after Lorna Smith moved out that she was going to be returning certain documentation to Janine, I was aware of that. In fact I did make a point of trying to look for that documentation. Lorna had for one or other reason decided to return that to Janine, that was via the telephone tap I'd heard that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if you'd just bear with me please?

Mr Bellingan on page 376 there's reference by Mr Steyn about a parking ticket and then he says there right at the bottom he says:

"Yes that's correct. At the time Lieutenant Colonel Els, it was unsuccessful"

and it says ...[inaudible] provided by Els, a receipt in reference to that ticket?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Was this receipt or the parking ticket ever dealt with in evidence at the trial?

MR BELLINGAN: Nothing like that was ever handed in at the inquest or the trial Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the parking tickets, what did you do with the parking tickets - parking ticket or tickets - can you just elaborate on that when you went back to Jan Smuts Airport after the murder?

MR BELLINGAN: They were left in my vehicle, Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: How many were there?

MR BELLINGAN: I had made the mistake and left both in my vehicle Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: And who would have come into possession of those tickets?

MR BELLINGAN: Either myself or my colleagues Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Anybody specific of your colleagues?

MR BELLINGAN: The person who drove the vehicle out, Mr Els who they are referring to here and who had in fact according to this over here given the investigating officer the receipt.

I don't recall what happened to the other parking ticket referring to the shorter space of time.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright and then Mr Bellingan on page 382 to 383, Mr Steyn gave evidence about the two hairs which you have testified about previously, the red hair and the other hair and the tampering with the evidence. Did you know of the tampering of the evidence before the inquest?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes I did Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: And why didn't you testify anything about it?

MR BELLINGAN: That would have defeated the whole object of the cover up Mr Chairman. One can also note from the questions asked by my own attorney who had agreed to represent me at short notice over there that I didn't want anyone to be left with the impression that there was some type of political motive pertaining to this matter. If one reads between the lines of what my own attorney's asking one can get that impression as well.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright Mr Bellingan - Mr Chairman, there are no further references, I'll provide you with the other references pertaining to some of these issues.

Mr Bellingan would you or could you elaborate on the question if there was any other alternative for you in this situation you found yourself in apart from killing your wife. What was your view and specifically your subjective view regarding a possible alternative?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman as from what I understood there was no alternative for me. There were no mechanisms, it was in some respects analogous to the situation where decisions had to be taken about for example the South African Council of churches where they were more or less in an untouchable position. The repercussions of trying to detain Janine, arrest her, charge her under the Official Secrets Act, that would have just been absurd. Trying to put pressure on her would have had exactly the opposite effect. Trying to get anyone else to convince Janine, Mr Chairman, was not an option. There was nothing else that I could do Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Bellingan and what was your belief of the possibility that she would at some stage or another make the information that she had public?

MR BELLINGAN: It was most definitely going to happen Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: And did you belief that your action was directed against the liberation movement?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

...[end of tape 1, side 2]

MR DU PLESSIS: ...[inaudible]

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I would like to apologise first and foremost to Janine's family. I know what this did to them. I would like to apologise for other activities which I was involved in and also for the activities of which I had knowledge and which I did nothing about. I feel the burden Mr Chairman of the secrets, I feel the burden of the complicity. I have had a lot of time on my own to deal with my own guilt about this Mr Chairman and I deeply regret it, I deeply regret having murdered my wife.

I would also like to say Mr Chairman that I hope if there is anything which, detail which I've neglected to mention now that if you would bear with me if I mention it under cross-examination or so on. I really don't remember if I've said everything but perhaps there may be something else that comes out under cross-examination. That is all and I can say thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Bellingan. Mr du Plessis, thank you very much. We intend to take the tea adjournment at this stage. We had thought that it would be expedient for the family of the deceased to start of the questioning and for Numsa to follow and for the rest of the interested parties and for Mr Chaskalson unfortunately to be at the end of the line but we'll adjourn at this stage for 15 minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: You are reminded that you are still under oath?

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Trengove?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, we have so many versions from you on these events that I'd like to make sure at the outset that I understand which version it is that you want this application to be judged on. I understand that you disavow the annexure to the first amnesty application?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: That annexure is indeed a pack of lies, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Not necessarily Mr Chairman, it's just not my document.

MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, it's either true or not. You've read that annexure is it true or is it not true, whether it's your document or not?

MR BELLINGAN: It's not my document Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, that's not the question. Is that document a true statement of fact or is it untrue?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, a huge amount from my quick glancing through that document is true but it is certainly not got anything to do with my amnesty application before this Committee here today.

MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan ...[intervention]

MR BELLINGAN: It's got nothing at all to do with my amnesty application before this Committee over here, this week.

MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, that's not the question and you're confined in your answers to the questions that I put to you, do you understand that?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes I do Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: The document is a pack of lies if you are to be believed, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: That's not even close to what I've said to you Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: It is hugely different from the version that you've presented today.

MR BELLINGAN: It does vary Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Significantly so in respect of the murder of Janine it varies. You could never honestly have given that version?

MR BELLINGAN: Before this Committee definitely not Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Anywhere Mr Bellingan.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I've applied for amnesty for perjury to say that I would not never give a false version anywhere would be grossly inaccurate.

MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, listen to the question. You could never honestly have given that version?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman in respect of the murder of Janine.

MR TRENGOVE: Whose document is it?

MR BELLINGAN: I have no idea who typed that document, it is most certainly not my document.

MR TRENGOVE: Who is the author of the document whoever the typist might have been?

MR BELLINGAN: It may have been a document which was part of the discussions I had with certain members of the TRC and or the Dr D'Oliveira's unit.

MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, documents aren't part of discussions. Who is the author of the document.

MR BELLINGAN: As I said Mr Chairman, that is not my document.

MR TRENGOVE: That's not the question, I'm asking you who is the author of it?

MR BELLINGAN: In respect of the part relating to the murder of Janine, the author of that document is - I may have been partially responsible for some of that information being told to some of the people that have come to see me.

MR TRENGOVE: Can't you just give a straight answer? Who is the author of the document?

MR BELLINGAN: In respect of who typed it?

MR TRENGOVE: No and I made that clear.

CHAIRPERSON: No, it shouldn't be so difficult to understand the question. Can you assist, do you know who prepared the document, who is the author?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't know who prepared the document Mr Chairman but I have an idea that a lot of the notes that I've given to people could have led to somebody typing such a document.

MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, is that your best answer? I asked you who the author is and you say that some of the notes that you've given to some unidentified people could have formed part of it. Can't you just give a straight answer?

MR BELLINGAN: That is my best answer Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: You don't know who the author is.

MR BELLINGAN: It's not what I said Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Well who is the author?

MR BELLINGAN: As I said Mr Chairman, that was my best answer.

MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, who was the author?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, with all due respect to Mr Trengove, the answer Mr Bellingan gave was that it may have been part of documents or discussions he had with Mr D'Oliveira and I think, I'm not sure if he said Mr Kelber.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja or the TRC and I think Mr Trengove is trying to get clarity on this whether he can be more specific.

MR DU PLESSIS: Correct, but with respect Mr Chairman, it is a document that is a typed document. Now is the question did Mr Bellingan type this document originally, was he the author of the document in the sense of having written it down, there are all sorts of permutations to this.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's none of that, it's none of those questions. It's an awkward question, it's a very simple too I believe, the question is can he say who the author of the document was, perhaps he can try and do that I mean if he can assist us, if he doesn't know, he doesn't know.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman my problem is one that I've taken up with the TRC when they came to see me last Thursday. I cannot for the life of me see how that document ended up in the bundle. I see it as an act of bad faith. There is no possible way that can be construed as being an amnesty application from myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes, no, no I don't want to interrupt you unnecessarily but I'm quite sure Mr Trengove will develop this point but at this stage I think it's a very simple question. If you can assist, who is the author of the document?

MR BELLINGAN: As I say Mr Chairman, I may have been responsible for the ideas that emanate in the document.

MR TRENGOVE: Anything is possible, Mr Bellingan and I'd just like facts, not speculation. Do you know who the author of the document is?

MR BELLINGAN: If it pleases Advocate Trengove let's call it myself as he termed it earlier the drawer or something of that nature.

MR TRENGOVE: You were the author of the document? Is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: For the sake of argument Mr Chairman, yes.

MR TRENGOVE: No we're not arguing we're asking you to give evidence of facts under oath. It's not a debating point Mr Bellingan.

MR BELLINGAN: I don't know Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: You don't know what?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't know for sure to say under oath that I'm the author of that document. I can't say that under oath.

MR TRENGOVE: Oh I see so you might have been the author but you just don't know.

MR BELLINGAN: I may have been responsible for the majority of the ideas contained in there Mr Chairman, I don't know that document, I've seen it for the first time recently.

MR TRENGOVE: I'm not asking you who the source of the information was, I'm trying to find out whether you know who the author was and you simply have - it's a simple question, it can either be yes or no? You either know or you don't?

MR BELLINGAN: As I say Mr Chairman, I am most likely responsible for the greater portion of the ideas in there, if not all of them.

MR TRENGOVE: Including the account of the murder.

MR BELLINGAN: Including the account of the murder Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: The one which is a pack of lies?

MR BELLINGAN: The one which is a pack of lies Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Why did you lie in your application to the Amnesty Committee?

MR DU PLESSIS: No Mr Chairman, with respect, the - with respect Mr Trengove if you'll just - Mr Chairman, if you'll bear with me?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes you want to object?

MR DU PLESSIS: It is not and the evidence was clear in respect of that, it is not his amnesty application before this Committee. He hasn't signed that document and the typed document he had never seen before last week so there's not an amnesty application or part of an amnesty application that he lodged, that was his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes, no that is so. Mr Trengove?

MR TRENGOVE: Why did you lie in the document?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't know the document Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: You were the author of it Mr Bellingan, why did you lie when you composed it?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't think I did compose the document Mr Chairman, I think I was responsible for the great proportion of ideas in there and I've ...[intervention]

MR TRENGOVE: No.

MR BELLINGAN: That was not my answer.

MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, you have to answer the question.

MR BELLINGAN: If I could just ask the question please?

MR TRENGOVE: We've made it quite clear that a distinction between the source of the information and the author of the document and you've identified yourself as the author, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: If I can just finish my answer to the question?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and then you deal with that question as well.

MR BELLINGAN: Thank you Mr Chairman. The question was to what would have motivated me as I understood it, to lie to somebody who came to visit me and asked me questions.

MR TRENGOVE: No that was not the question.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Trengove, repeat the question. Listen very carefully.

MR TRENGOVE: Why did you lie in the document.

MR BELLINGAN: I don't know the document Mr Chairman, I don't mind saying it again.

MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, you were the author of the document, somebody else might have typed it but you were it's author and you lied in it, I'm asking why?

MR BELLINGAN: In respect of the murder application Mr Chairman, I have had numerous dealings with various forums and people, I do not know who I could trust, I was under absolutely no obligation to tell anybody the truth about it, in fact quite the opposite Mr Chairman. The people from the TRC are strangers from me, the people from Dr d'Oliveira's office that came to see me are strangers to me, the people from the South African Police that came to see me are strangers to me. I don't know what their political agenda is Mr Chairman, I don't know if they're working for the old guard, I don't know what exactly motivates them to do the work that they're doing and what motivates them to come and ask me questions. Sitting in a maximum prison I also have been in need of information. Now in order to get information, in order to get some type of process going where I could find out exactly where I stand, it was necessary and also further to discussions that I had, confidential discussions, with certain advocates, upon advice it was necessary not to tell the truth to people.

MR TRENGOVE: That is a non-answer Mr Bellingan. Can I repeat it, why did you lie in the document.

MR BELLINGAN: I also don't mind repeating my answer Mr Chairman but ...[intervention]

MR TRENGOVE: ...[inaudible] the question.

MR BELLINGAN: ...[inaudible] the document and secondly I've explained that I was under no obligation to tell anybody the truth and I did not tell the entire truth to people, in fact quite the opposite as I've said until such time as I know who I'm dealing with, what their motive is, what their background is which is not something you get overnight Mr Chairman from one or two visits from people. Some of Mr Shelberg's colleagues from the TRC have come to see me about whom I know nothing. Mr Shelberg has been to see me many, many times, I've developed a rapport with him. Some of his colleagues had even come to see me behind his back. I don't know what their motive is, I don't know what their political agenda is. I have also seen other people who I'm very unsure about, in fact quite the opposite, I don't trust people any more Mr Chairman and as I say I was absolutely under no obligation to at some point come clean with this until such time as I had spoken and got legal advice about with attorneys whom I trusted. That is the position Mr Chairman and I repeat I don't know that document, it is not part of my amnesty application.

MR TRENGOVE: What harm would it have done to tell them the truth?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman there already has been one attempt on my life while I was in prison. To suddenly start opening up when I've got specific instructions not to cooperate with the Truth Commission, not to tell the truth. When I've perjured myself, when I've lied, when I've been involved in operations Mr Chairman which go right up to the highest level of the government of this country, would I be such a fool to just open up to each and every person. They could have been journalists for all I know Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan that answer can't possibly be true. This document does not in any way avoid implicating people. On the contrary, it attaches a list of people implicated and they include all the people you've implicated in your evidence, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: My answer was true Mr Chairman to you. Secondly in respect of the murder could Mr Trengove just mention the names to me because to refresh my memory? I haven't got the document in front of me?

MR TRENGOVE: According to you the truth is that you committed the murder on your own and nobody else assisted you, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: That is my evidence before this Committee Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: So why not tell that truth in this document?

MR BELLINGAN: I had absolutely no intention of telling the truth...[intervention]

MR TRENGOVE: That we know.

MR BELLINGAN: About sensitive operations to people who came to see Mr Chairman until such time as I had proper legal advice and knew where I stand in respect of the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: If you'd - give me a short answer, I don't intend to interrupt you.

MR BELLINGAN: Perhaps if I could also just find the reference to the names regarding the murder which the ...[intervention]

MR TRENGOVE: Have a look at the amnesty application, page 8? That is the annexure we're talking about, is that correct? The document of which you were the author not the typist.

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: And turn to page 14, that's another annexure. Were you the author of that annexure?

MR BELLINGAN: I may have been the author of this document. Is it an annexure in the sense that it's attached to these documents here? It's an annexure in any other sense Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: It's a attached to your amnesty application.

MR DU PLESSIS: With respect Mr Chairman, we see that from the bundle but there's no indication that that document when it was handed to the TRC was attached ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: No it's not necessary to get into that debate and Mr Bellingan as well. An annexure in the sense of being in this bundle here. We understand your position, you say this never formed part of the application that you submitted to the amnesty committee, do you understand that?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, I understand that. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: So deal with it on that basis.

MR TRENGOVE: Were you the author of the annexure that commences at page 14?

MR BELLINGAN: I may have been Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Were you the author of the annexure that commences at page 16?

MR BELLINGAN: It seems very likely that I was Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Were you the author of the annexure that commences at page 21?

MR BELLINGAN: I was most likely responsible for this as well Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: The list implicating policemen and colleagues of every variety.

MR BELLINGAN: Except in respect of number 22 Mr Chairman which is the murder.

MR TRENGOVE: Yes and that is your evidence today.

MR BELLINGAN: In actual fact what the advocate said is not correct because the advocate said, put to me that I'd implicated people over there and I'd mentioned officers names and number 22 is the only one where there's no officers' names mentioned.

MR TRENGOVE: Yes that's obvious, yes Mr Bellingan, telling them the truth wouldn't have implicated any more people, correct? On your version, if you're to be believed.

MR BELLINGAN: I'm not quite sure the "them" that it is referring to but I presume he means the people who ultimately typed this document and I believe that that would have been injurious to myself.

MR TRENGOVE: No. Mr Bellingan, telling the truth in this document about the murder wouldn't have implicated any more people than you had implicated already, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman at least people would have been more at ease, firstly and secondly I may have been in a better position to get information back from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

MR TRENGOVE: Why don't you just answer the question?

MR BELLINGAN: Please repeat the question?

MR TRENGOVE: Telling the truth as you would have it about the murder in this document wouldn't have implicated anybody you hadn't already implicated?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: To whom - do you have any idea who might have typed this document, to whom did you give this statement that you've prepared?

MR BELLINGAN: I've got no idea who typed this document Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: To whom did you give the statement of which you had been the author?

MR BELLINGAN: This seems to be a compilation Mr Chairman of perhaps various conversations, perhaps it was one conversation. Much of this is actually in my amnesty application Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, just answer the question. We've established - go to page 8. We've established that you were the author but not the typist of that document correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: To whom did you give the original document that you had prepared?

MR BELLINGAN: I cannot recall Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Who assisted you in the preparation of your first amnesty application?

MR BELLINGAN: Nobody whatsoever Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Who completed your first amnesty application, whose handwriting is it we see from page 1?

MR BELLINGAN: That is my handwriting Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Whose oath is it that appears at page 7?

MR BELLINGAN: That is mine Mr Chairman - sorry the Commissioner of Oaths is a person by the name of Johnson, he works for Correctional Services ...[intervention]

MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, I didn't ask what the Commissioner's name was, I said whose oath was it?

MR BELLINGAN: On page 6?

MR TRENGOVE: I don't know whether you understand what oath means? Do you?

MR BELLINGAN: The advocate referred to page 7 Mr Chairman, on page 7 there's no signature from me it's a signature of Mr Johnson from Correctional Services. On page 6 ...[intervention]

MR TRENGOVE: No there's a statement at the top of the page that the declaration was duly sworn. I'm asking you whose oath is referred to on that page?

MR BELLINGAN: That is my oath Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: What do you say which document or documents comprised your first amnesty application?

MR BELLINGAN: My first amnesty application was a skeleton application Mr Chairman, comprising pages - comprising the pro-forma form which is titled "Application for Amnesty in terms of Section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995". It in itself is titled "Annexure - Form 1" and it runs to page 7, Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: That and that alone?

MR BELLINGAN: That is my amnesty application as agreed between myself and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

MR TRENGOVE: Just answer the question. That and that alone?

MR BELLINGAN: That and that alone Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: No document other than pages 1 to 7?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: And all the handwriting on this document is yours?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman, other than page 7.

MR TRENGOVE: Then could you please tell us, on page 5 paragraph 11(b), could you read the answer to that question?

MR BELLINGAN: I write there: "Refer to annexure", Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Yes and what was that Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: That is the annexure which would have filled out the meat of the skeleton application.

MR TRENGOVE: It was intended ...[intervention]

MR BELLINGAN: After consultation with an attorney.

MR TRENGOVE: This document was intended to have an annexure attached to it?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: And that was the purpose for which you gave the information?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, that is not true.

MR TRENGOVE: And that was the purpose for which you prepared the statement at page 8?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, that is not so.

MR TRENGOVE: What was the purpose for which you prepared that statement?

MR BELLINGAN: As I've explained Mr Chairman, I needed information back from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I needed to know also who I could trust. It was a start of a process or it was during a process of discussions with various people Mr Chairman. The exact circumstances I cannot remember.

MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, why don't you answer the question? What was the purpose of the statement?

MR BELLINGAN: It was most definitely not to be submitted as an annexure to my amnesty application Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Why don't you just answer the question?

Do you want me to repeat it?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't remember exactly Mr Chairman but I think I've covered it already.

MR TRENGOVE: No you haven't Mr Bellingan and if you have, do it again.

MR BELLINGAN: Let me repeat it then Mr Chairman ...[intervention]

MR TRENGOVE: And remember the question is, what was the purpose of the statement which commences at page 8?

MR BELLINGAN: It was most likely in response to questions that had been put to me by people from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

MR TRENGOVE: Names?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall all of them Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: One of them?

MR BELLINGAN: The person that I've seen most and with whom I built up - had built up a rapport is Mr Shelberg who is sitting over there.

MR TRENGOVE: No, that's not the question. One name of one person to whom you gave this statement?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I don't recall Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Did you keep the original statement that you had prepared?

MR BELLINGAN: I do not recall that there was one specific statement Mr Chairman, I don't recall much about that. My authorship of the document I don't recall much about that so to refer to the statement I can't be specific over there but I don't have anything like that in my possession at all.

MR TRENGOVE: When did your present attorney start to represent you?

MR BELLINGAN: It was around April or May 1997.

MR TRENGOVE: Turn to the second amnesty application in that bundle at page 23. This is the application on which you want to be judged, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: This is my application before the Amnesty Committee, Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Just answer the question. This is the application on wish you wished to be judged?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: It was prepared by your current attorney and advocate, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: On your instructions?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: The oath at the end of the statement is - at the end of the application at page 476 is yours?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: And you swore then that the application was true, do you still confirm that that is so?

MR BELLINGAN: Aside from minor changes here and there due to typing etcetera, etcetera, Mr Chairman. I confirm it is true.

MR TRENGOVE: Forget the typing errors for the moment. Are the facts in this document true?

MR BELLINGAN: As far as my memory serves me, yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Did you when you instructed your current attorneys and advocate, give them a copy of the original statement? That's the statement at page 8 or any part of it to instruct them?

MR BELLINGAN: I gave my attorneys a pile of documentation Mr Chairman, including stuff that I had given to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, that is correct and it is in fact contained in - recognise a lot of it, yes.

MR TRENGOVE: There's a great deal of similarity in parts between the two sets of facts is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: For instance the description of the Numsa frauds has been repeated verbatim?

MR BELLINGAN: It's highly likely Mr Chairman, I have not compared but it's likely.

MR TRENGOVE: So that the document that you gave your lawyers would have included it if not the original statement that you had prepared then at least the information on which it was based?

MR BELLINGAN: There was no original statement Mr Chairman, it would have been a series of written things by myself and a lot of that would have gone to the attorneys for them to draw up this document which is my amnesty application or the annexure referred to in.

MR TRENGOVE: And you say that when your original, the first amnesty application was submitted, the intention was later to attack an annexure to it?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Was that done?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: When was the annexure attached to it and what annexure was attached to it?

MR BELLINGAN: It was done - the annexure was sent by the Attorneys Strydom, Britz, whatever the date may have been I'm not sure when it was ...[intervention]

MR TRENGOVE: What annexure are you talking about?

MR DU PLESSIS: Can we just make sure Mr Trengove, Mr Chairman if Mr Trengove is speaking of the schedule that first formal document or is he speaking of the application that Mr Britz and I were responsible for?

CHAIRPERSON: No, I understand him to refer to that first annexure.

MR DU PLESSIS: Through the first one, that's how I understood it too.

MR TRENGOVE: I think I said so.

MR DU PLESSIS: I just think Mr Bellingan misunderstood you Mr Trengove.

MR BELLINGAN: I can't remember when it was finalised Mr Chairman but just as soon as they finalised it they brought it through for me to sign who did affirm, people from Mr Britz's office.

MR TRENGOVE: And did you sign it?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman I did.

MR TRENGOVE: And where is it today?

MR BELLINGAN: It's before the Amnesty Committee Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Could you identify the document in that bundle?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I have to come in here ...[intervention]

MR TRENGOVE: My learned friend doesn't have to come in, if there's any misunderstanding he can clarify it in reply.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well if my client is testifying that the first application and that annexure which wasn't signed by him, if he's testifying that I - that that was in possession of my attorney or I had seen it, then I'll have to ask for an adjournment, Mr Chairman. My client clearly misunderstands the question, he is testifying about the second application. If he is saying the first application then I must ask for an adjournment Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well let's hear, let him deal with it, we'll see if there's a misunderstanding. Just be patient Mr du Plessis, please.

MR BELLINGAN: 26 November 1997, Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Where are you reading from?

MR BELLINGAN: From page 475 of ...[intervention]

MR TRENGOVE: That's the second amnesty application, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: This is the body of my amnesty application in response to my skeleton application that was submitted.

MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan...[intervention]

MR BELLINGAN: It's not a second application as such Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Look at page 23. There's been no misunderstanding about this whatsoever. Look at page 23.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: And compare it with page 1. Those are two amnesty applications that we have been consistently referring to as the first and the second amnesty application, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: That is not my error Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: This is one and the same amnesty application.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Bellingan, it might assist if you confine yourself to the question and try and answer it. Mr Trengove is asking you to confirm whether the document which starts on page 1, paginated page 1 of this pile of documents that are before us, is understood to be your first amnesty application.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And the document which starts on page 23 in that bundle is understood to be your second amnesty application?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, that is how I understood it and that is why I'm saying that that is not the case.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no just for the purposes of your testimony here?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

MR TRENGOVE: And if you refer back to what I have called the first amnesty application, page 5, paragraph 11(b) it says:

What I want to know from you is whether that annexure has ever been prepared and annexed to this document?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman it is the annexures sent in by Strydom Britz Attorneys.

MR TRENGOVE: You mean the document I have called the second amnesty application?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: You have supplemented your second amnesty application or your attorneys have done so on your behalf and I want to refer you to those documents and ask you whether they - whether it is correct that they must be taken to have supplemented your application and to form part of the case on which you wish to be judged. Refer to the applicant's bundle 3.1, page 17. That is a letter from the Commission to your current attorney, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: One of the things it does or what it does is to ask for further information, do you see that?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: The reply to that letter is at page 19?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Can we accept that that reply was prepared on your instructions, on the information that you gave your attorneys.

MR BELLINGAN: It seems to be accurate Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: So that it forms part of the case on which you wish to be judged?

MR BELLINGAN: I would prefer to read it first Mr Chairman but for the sake of argument let me say ...[intervention]

MR TRENGOVE: No, no, no Mr Bellingan, I don't know why you would imagine that evidence under oath is a debate? It's not an argument.

MR BELLINGAN: Perhaps I'm just being pedantic Mr Chairman but I haven't actually read this document yet.

MR TRENGOVE: Why don't you do so now?

MR BELLINGAN: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you read the document which appears at paginated page 19 of Volume 3.1?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And what is your response to the question?

MR BELLINGAN: I agree with it Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Trengove?

MR TRENGOVE: And then further questions were asked of you, you will see firstly at page 8 of the same bundle there is a letter of the Commission of the 26th November asking further questions and to those questions yet further questions were added at the pre-trial conference on the 4th December, you'll see the minute of that conference commences at page 2 but if you turn to page 7 in paragraph 9 you will see further questions were asked. The reply to those questions came by way of Exhibit A faxed to us last Friday the 22nd January. Would you look at Exhibit A and confirm that that is the reply emanating from your side?

Mr Bellingan, I don't think you need to have any concerns in this regard, you counsel when he handed it in as an exhibit explained that it was the reply of your side, do you remember that?

MR BELLINGAN: Once again Mr Chairman, I haven't seen it before.

MR TRENGOVE: Haven't seen the document before?

MR BELLINGAN: Not this document no.

MR TRENGOVE: I see. Was it not prepared in consultation with you last week?

MR BELLINGAN: I'm quite sure it must have been Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Did your lawyers consult with you last week?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Did they raise all these TRC questions with you?

MR BELLINGAN: They actually gave me a - ja they did raise the questions Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: And did you give them the answers to those questions?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Well, would you check the document to satisfy yourself that we can rely on the document that your advocate and attorney have given us as being your answers?

MR BELLINGAN: Can I read it?

MR TRENGOVE: Yes by all means.

MR DU PLESSIS: Could I perhaps ask for a short adjournment? There's a specific reason therefore.

CHAIRPERSON: Personal to yourself.

MR DU PLESSIS: To myself and I think under the circumstances and I have to phone my attorney Mr Britz to discuss the specific situation with him which has arisen now Mr Chairman and which I feel perhaps before the matter goes further that I have to raise with him and discuss with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. How far are you with the reading there Mr Bellingan, how far are you there?

MR BELLINGAN: I'm nearly finished Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Otherwise I will take it up in lunchtime Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, let's do that, let's try and keep the ...[intervention]

MR BELLINGAN: From my side I don't have a problem, I'm nearly finished.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, okay, I don't want to interrupt you, finish?

MR TRENGOVE: Yes Mr Bellingan, you've read the document now?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes I've read the document Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: And does it represent your answers to those questions?

MR BELLINGAN: I haven't got the questions in front of me so here and there I'm a little confused as to what exactly was meant and perhaps the wording may differ slightly but in essence yes, I'm happy with it.

MR TRENGOVE: There's not inaccuracy in the facts in that document?

MR BELLINGAN: In paragraph 4 on page 4 I'm not too sure what I'm by as far as denial of any involvement, there seem to be many ranging from leader to my colleagues, I don't have the question in front of me but as for the rest it's a bit overstated here and there but - well in one place in particular but I'm happy with the facts.

MR TRENGOVE: What is the particular place where it's overstated?

...[end of Tape 2, Side 1]

MR BELLINGAN: Oh ja, that is the clandestine meeting was - that's a bit overstated. It was clandestine but it's a bit overstated.

MR TRENGOVE: What meeting does that refer to?

MR BELLINGAN: With Colonel Oosthuizen.

MR TRENGOVE: Clandestine meeting with your boss?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Now you know that this application, the essence of this application turns on the object with which you murdered your wife, that's what it's all about, isn't it?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: I'd like to capture the essence of your case in that regard without doing injustice to the detail of it and I tried to reduce it to three propositions and I'd like to ask you whether those propositions correctly reflect the essence of that.

The first is that you say you killed for your country, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR TRENGOVE: You killed out of sheer patriosm, saying the same thing in different words?

MR BELLINGAN: Not my words but I think it would be fair to argue that.

MR TRENGOVE: You killed because your wife was a threat, that stood to destroy your unit, the Security Branch, the government and the peaceful transition to democracy?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Secondly you killed for your country because you thought it was your duty to do so?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: You had no choice?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Thirdly, in doing so you were not motivated and I quote you "by some or other irrelevant personal factor" Correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: In fact if this answer to the questions that you've just led is to be believed you killed your wife despite the fact that your relationship with her at the time was quote "very good." Correct?

MR BELLINGAN: That is true Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Was it hard for you to kill your wife with whom you had a very good relationship?

MR BELLINGAN: The decision was a difficult one to make Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Did you love your wife?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: You loved your wife, you had a very good relationship with her but you killed her out of sheer sense of duty?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: You didn't just kill her, you butchered her?

MR BELLINGAN: I murdered my wife Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: You butchered her Mr Bellingan, you smashed her skull?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: When she woke up and put up resistance you put your knee on her abdomen to pin her down and smashed her skull again, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman. She did wake up in other words my first blow that I struck was - did not do the job and I had to strike two more blows in quick succession.

MR TRENGOVE: Why was her abdomen severely bruised?

MR BELLINGAN: I understand Mr Chairman from the evidence of the pathologist or whoever gave evidence that it was something to do with the rigor mortis or something like that. Apparently it's something that happens.

MR TRENGOVE: After smashing her skull again you strangled her?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: In the line of duty?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: You were just doing your job?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Have a look at bundle B5, page 59, that's our bundle of documents, B5, that's the bundle that we gave you yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the page Mr Trengove?

MR TRENGOVE: 59 Mr Chairman. You'll see that pages 59, 60 and 61 depict the corpse of your wife in the murder scene?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: The wall and the ceiling were splattered with blood?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Your wife's body was severely mutilated?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: You did that while your children lay asleep in the room next door?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: You left her corpse in that condition well knowing that they would wake up the following morning, seek out their mother for warmth and comfort and find her butchered body?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, the maid Lydia Kubeka always came in before the children woke up.

MR TRENGOVE: It didn't happen that morning. It didn't happen that morning Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: And it was inevitable whoever woke first that the children would be confronted by the mutilated corpse of their mother?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: And you did that Mr Bellingan because it was your job?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: The explanation that you give for the murder today was first given to anybody in your second amnesty application? Correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: It was not a version that you had previously given to anybody?

MR BELLINGAN: I only told the truth before this Commission for the first time Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Just answer the question. It is not a version, an explanation that you had given to anybody before that application was filed.

MR BELLINGAN: I wouldn't put it like that Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Well why don't you just answer the question?

Did you advance this explanation to anybody before you did so in your second amnesty application?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman it wasn't necessary because people knew that I killed my wife.

MR TRENGOVE: Just answer the question.

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: You did not give this explanation to anybody before you gave it in your second amnesty application, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: In my amnesty application, yes Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan the only reason you murdered the wife - your wife and the mother of your children and the only reason you thought it was your duty to do so was and I quote that "you were not a hundred percent certain that she would not in future divulge the information she had obtained" is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman but at the same time I was certain that she would.

MR TRENGOVE: No, no you don't seem to understand, one can't get too contradictory and mutually exclusive answers at the same time. I know that you would want to but you can't.

MR BELLINGAN: Could the advocate just repeat the original question, those exact words I didn't quite get them.

MR TRENGOVE: Well let me simply quote from Exhibit A, paragraph 6 and in fairness to you let me first go back to the question which precipitated paragraph 6. Could you go to bundle 3.1, Mr Bellingan go to bundle 3.1, page 8, you'll see that's the TRC letter of the 26th November.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Trengove have you ...[intervention]

MR TRENGOVE: Sorry, it's page 9 of the bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR TRENGOVE: I had two page numbers but the correct one is page 9. That's the TRC letter of the 26th November last year, it asks a series of questions, if you could turn to page 11 you'll see there's a paragraph 6 and it says "how would he describe his personal relationship with his wife prior to the murder, do you see that?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman I do.

MR TRENGOVE: And then in Exhibit A the answer came at page 4 of Exhibit A of paragraph 6. Could you read that paragraph into the record please?

MR TRENGOVE: Yes, so what you're saying there is simply that there was some risk that she might in future divulge the information?

MR BELLINGAN: She was going to divulge the information Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan just answer the question. What this paragraph tells us is that you believed at the time that there was some risk that she might at some time in the future divulge that information?

MR BELLINGAN: What I'm saying over here Mr Chairman and what I believe these words to say is that I needed a hundred percent certainty that she would not divulge information that she had, I did not have that certainty.

MR TRENGOVE: Yes precisely because there was some risk.

MR BELLINGAN: There was a huge risk Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: No. All this says is that you couldn't be absolutely sure that she might not at some future date divulge that information. This is what this document tells us and that is the statement that you confirmed a few minutes ago.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Trengove may read it like that but Mr Chairman, I certainly don't.

MR TRENGOVE: That - what that statement does not say is "I was certain that she was going to divulge that information."

On the contrary it says "I didn't believe that she would do so but I couldn't be a hundred percent sure."

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, this statement must be taken in the context of my description of my relationship with Janine which is what the question asks about. It says how would I describe my personal relationship with Janine. My relationship was good but at the time she made the phone call it became clear to me that she was going to divulge the information so that is, my perspective was I needed to be one hundred percent certain that she would not do that. The final act that sealed it for me was knowing that Janine was in fact going to do that so in terms of my relationship with Janine I did not have that certainty Mr Chairman.

MR TRENGOVE: Yes, that's the only reason you advance in this document. All you say here is "I couldn't