ON RESUMPTION
TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: (Still under oath).
CHAIRPERSON: I would like to apologise and explain to the members of the public who have been sitting here since 09H30 the reason for the delay. It was proposed to call a certain witness today, but, unfortunately, it has emerged that he has not been offered, he had not been afforded an opportunity to consult a legal adviser before a statement was taken from him, nor was he afforded that opportunity in the light of the fact that he is one of the persons implicated in the present proceedings and, in terms of the Act, is entitled to legal advice. We, unfortunately, had to try to make arrangements this morning and that has been done and I think it is, all the lawyers concerned agree that it is a case where he is, should have and be improper to proceed without affording him the opportunity of taking legal advice. That means that we will not be able to conclude this hearing today, because it has not been possible to arrange for a lawyer to make himself available and to investigate the position fully in order to advise his client.
We will, however, proceed now with the continuing cross-examination of the second applicant and thereafter it will be necessary to adjourn this hearing to a date to be arranged.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR B WILLIAMS (cont)
MR B WILLIAMS: Thank you very much Mr Chairperson, members of the Committee. I now proceed with the cross-examination of Mr Mbelo. Are you ready Mr Mbelo?
MR P WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, before the applicant begins answering questions, he would just like to inform the Committee that he has decided to give his testimony in Tswana.
MR B WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, may I proceed?
INTERPRETER: The witness is having a technical problem on four for Tswana.
MR B WILLIAMS: You cannot hear me, Mr Mbelo?
MR MBELO: I cannot hear ... (intervention).
MR P WILLIAMS: The interpreter.
MR MBELO: ... the interpreter. She said ... (intervention).
CHAIRPERSON: Is the receiver set for channel four?
MR MBELO: It is set for channel four, Mr Chairman.
MR B WILLIAMS: Can you hear me now, Mr Mbelo? Can you hear me now?
MR MBELO: I am waiting for the translator to tell me, then I can hear her.
MR B WILLIAMS: You still cannot hear me, Mr Mbelo?
MR MBELO: I hear you, Mr Williams, but I do not hear my interpreter.
CHAIRPERSON: Nothing is coming through on channel four as far as I can hear.
MR B WILLIAMS: Can you hear me now, Mr Mbelo?
MR MBELO: Can only hear English and Xhosa, not Tswana.
MS KHAMPEPE: The translation has to come through in Tswana.
MR MBELO: Nothing happens on three, no Tswana.
INTERPRETER: We will try channel three for Tswana. He can hear me clearly now.
MR B WILLIAMS: May I then proceed, Mr Mbelo?
MR MBELO: Yes, your Honour.
MR B WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. Mr Mbelo, you testified yesterday, if I remember correctly, that there was a Caspar in the bushes, which is marked at the points S, T and QR.
MR MBELO: I do not remember giving evidence that there was a Caspar there.
MR B WILLIAMS: Have you possibly mentioned this in your application or in your Section 29 hearing which took place?
MR MBELO: Maybe I mentioned this after having seen the place.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is very far from him, we cannot get the sound clearly.
MR MBELO: I am saying, in my application I never said I saw a Caspar. It is possible that in my Section 29 I said so after having seen the video in the, used in the Weaver Trial.
MR B WILLIAMS: So, you are saying that you do not have any independent recollection of there being a Caspar there on that day?
MR MBELO: I am not saying I do not recall ...
INTERPRETER: There is a problem with the speaker's mike.
MR P WILLIAMS: Can you hear now?
MR MBELO: I was telling, I was saying that where I have written my affidavit there is nowhere I make mention of a Caspar, but perhaps in the Section 29 I mentioned the Caspar, because of the video used in the Weaver Trial.
MR B WILLIAMS: All right, I will leave that point there, Mr Mbelo.
You said in your evidence in-chief that you knew it would be impossible to arrest the, these armed men?
MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.
MR B WILLIAMS: You also said that words to the effect that the men were to be killed had been used?
MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Chairperson.
MR B WILLIAMS: Can you indicate to the Committee whom you recall actually using these words?
MR MBELO: The person that I recall clearly having used these words, it is my co-applicant for amnesty, Mr Bellingan.
MR B WILLIAMS: Do you recall mentioning in your Section 29 hearing that it was planned to ambush the guerrillas?
MR MBELO: I do not remember saying that, but it is possible.
MR B WILLIAMS: Do you recall saying that ambushing the guerrillas, by ambushing the guerrillas you understood to mean that they were to be killed?
MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.
MR B WILLIAMS: You also say that at some stage during your presence on the scene, you were instructed to withdraw, because the police bus had safely reached Guguletu Police Station? Is that correct?
MR MBELO: Yes, it is so. They told us that the bus had already passed that point where it was supposed to be ambushed.
MR B WILLIAMS: We have also heard evidence from Mr Bellingan that, despite the instruction to withdraw, the police in the bushes were, in all probability, still concealed there. Do you agree with that?
MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.
MR B WILLIAMS: And do you also agree with him when he says that, in all probability, the vehicles in which the police were operating there, were still circulating in the are?
MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, I agree with him on that point.
MR B WILLIAMS: Now, when you saw the deceased, Christopher Piet, and four men in NY3, as you testified, did you see any other ... (intervention).
CHAIRPERSON: Is it NY3 or NY111, as we have been referring to it earlier?
MR B WILLIAMS: I must apologise, perhaps I should refer to it as NY111, if it pleases the Chairperson.
Mr Mbelo, when you saw the deceased, Christopher Piet, and the four men in NY111, while you were circulating, did you see any other police in that immediate vicinity?
MR MBELO: When I went past there, there were no other policemen or their vehicle. That is why I explained to them that it seems as if these culprits that you are looking for are approaching the intersection.
MR B WILLIAMS: And at the time that you noticed these men, they were walking in the direction of NY1. Am I correct?
MR MBELO: Yes, Sir, they were approaching that direction.
MR B WILLIAMS: If you look at page 245 of Volume I, it is your application in this matter. You will notice that a few lines down to the bottom you say the following words and I quote,
"Because I was of the view that they were intent on attacking policemen, I communicated this information to the other policemen via radio."
Would you explain to the Committee which policemen you thought these men were about to attack?
MR MBELO: I would respond by saying that according to the ambush it was because of the planned attack by these men and they are going to attack a Kombi. I was explaining to them that the men that they were waiting for have just passed by, but the Kombi had already passed at that point. I was just explaining to them that the men that they were looking for were in the intersection of NY1 and NY111.
MR B WILLIAMS: But the reason, that you say on this page that I have quoted to you, is that you thought that the men were intent on attacking the policemen and the question is which policemen were the men intent on attacking?
MR MBELO: That is the Kombi that had already passed, Chairperson.
MR B WILLIAMS: But, Mr Mbelo, you have just testified that the Kombi was already safely at the police station.
MR P WILLIAMS OBJECTS
MR P WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, with all due respect, it is my respectful submission that this sentence is capable, is ambiguous, it is capable of more than one construction and the explanation that the applicant has given is the construction to be put on the sentence.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Williams, I have the same problem and difficulty that Mr Brent Williams has. I only read the statement as meaning that Mr Mbelo communicated the fact that the insurgents were around, because he was of the belief that the insurgents intended to attack the policemen. I mean, it is quite clear and I do not think it is in dispute. The whole operation was planned in reaction to the intended attack by the insurgents on the mini-bus, not on the individual policemen. I read it the same way as Mr Brent Williams reads it and I would have wanted Mr Mbelo to give me an explanation as well.
MR P WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, if I can be of assistance. I have drafted the affidavit and maybe the emphasis should have been on the people that he saw. The impression was that it is the people that he saw, he was under the impression that they were the people or they were the group who were intent on attacking the policemen. So, ... (intervention).
MR B WILLIAMS OBJECTS
MR B WILLIAMS: Mr Chairperson, I must object here. I have a problem with my colleague giving evidence on behalf of his client.
CHAIRPERSON: Does it really take the matter any further?
MR B WILLIAMS: Your Worship, I actually think it does. I am getting to the point, your Worship.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, get to the point.
MR B WILLIAMS: Thank you very much.
Mr Mbelo, you will then concede that at the time that you saw these men, there is absolutely no possibility that they were going to be attacking anybody?
MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.
MR B WILLIAMS: And it is also a common cause that by all accounts these men were unaware of the presence of the other policemen who were concealed in the bushes, not so?
MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.
MR B WILLIAMS: Would you agree with me that up until that point that you communicated the presence of these men to your colleagues, there had been absolutely no shooting at all?
MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.
MR B WILLIAMS: Would you agree that the shooting only commenced after you had communicated the presence of these men to your colleagues?
MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.
MR B WILLIAMS: Do you not agree that by communicating their presence and position you were, for all intents and purposes, signing these mens death warrants?
MR P WILLIAMS OBJECTS
MR P WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, I object to the question posed to the applicant.
CHAIRPERSON: Why?
MR P WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, if, the question is that the applicant signed the death warrants, it is not the applicant who signed their death warrants, your, Mr Chairman. The applicant was there, was on the scene for a specific purpose or for a specific mission your, Mr Chairman, and on the scene he fell under a certain command and he acted out of his duty at that time, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: It may be incorrect to say signed the death warrants, they had already been signed. He sought to bring them into effect.
MR B WILLIAMS: Thank you very much, Mr Chairperson.
Mr Mbelo, would you agree that you sought to bring into effect the death of these men?
MR MBELO: By telling them these people were there, as a policeman it was my duty to inform that, these people that they have been long waiting for, they are there and if there is an intention to arrest them, then that was the appropriate time. As my co-applicant has already indicated that Eric had also told him that these men were already there.
MR B WILLIAMS: Mr Mbelo, at this stage we are dealing with you and you now want to convey to the Committee that you thought it was an appropriate time to arrest them. Do you not agree, you have already testified that the question of arresting these men was, in your mind, absolutely impossible?
MR MBELO: Yes, Sir, according to the way we were told, they will be heavily armed.
MR B WILLIAMS: You have already testified that words to the effect of "sweep them", "eliminate them" were used, which you understood to mean kill them.
MR MBELO: Yes, Chairperson, it is so.
MR B WILLIAMS: So, you will agree that when you announced to your colleagues that these people were on the scene, you knew that they would be killed, not so?
MR MBELO: According to what I have heard, it is so.
MR B WILLIAMS: Mr Mbelo, do you agree that those individuals were sitting ducks?
INTERPRETER: Please repeat the question.
MR B WILLIAMS: Do you understand the term "sitting ducks", Mr Mbelo?
MR MBELO: Yes, I understand.
MR B WILLIAMS: Do you agree that those individuals, when you made that announcement, those individuals were sitting ducks in their position?
MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: I thought you told us that you believed they were heavily armed, hardly sitting ducks?
MR MBELO: According to the plan, I heard that they will be heavily armed.
MR B WILLIAMS: Mr Mbelo, if I understand you correctly, you never said that you saw any arms on those men when you saw them at the intersection of NY3, not so?
MR MBELO: That is true, Sir.
MR B WILLIAMS: Now, can you help this Committee by explaining what your thinking was when you exposed these men to certain death?
MR MBELO: As a policeman, at that particular morning, was to go and wait for these men and we were told to withdraw, because the Kombi had already passed, but as a policeman I had to tell them that the suspects were there. That was my duty.
MR B WILLIAMS: I want to put it to you, Mr Mbelo, that the only reason why you mentioned that those men were there was because it was your intention, as it was your colleagues intention, to eliminate those people.
MR MBELO: According to the manner in which they died, I would agree with you there.
MR B WILLIAMS: You further testified, Mr Mbelo, that you went from that intersection around the block and came back to that intersection, not so?
MR MBELO: Yes, I went around NY111 and re-entered NY1. MR B WILLIAMS: Can you give this Committee an indication of how long it took you, it may have taken minutes, to round that block and come back to the same position, or a similar position, to where the vehicle is parked, your vehicle is parked, as indicated in the diagram? Just a rough estimate.
MR MBELO: I do not recall clearly how long it took me.
MR B WILLIAMS: Would you agree that it would have been matter of a minute or two, at most?
MR MBELO: Yes, that is possible, Sir.
MR B WILLIAMS: So, the space of, to be fair to you, say, three minutes, by the time you reached that intersection Jabu Miya and Christopher Piet were dying or already dead, because they were down, according to your evidence, not so?
MR MBELO: Yes, Sir, not Chris. When I got to the intersection Chris was running and shooting when I get there, but Jabu was already down.
MR B WILLIAMS: But you will concede that moments later he was down as well, not so?
MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.
MR B WILLIAMS: And this is the person as position D?
MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.
MR B WILLIAMS: And if we understand your evidence correctly, it must have been moments after you arrived at the intersection that an unarmed Zabonke Konile and a surrendering Mr Mlifie also lost their lives?
MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.
MR B WILLIAMS: So, would you agree, that by all accounts, in the space of a matter of minutes, four people had lost their lives?
MR MBELO: I do not disagree with you.
MR B WILLIAMS: You will also agree with me that this places into perspective why Captain Bellingan regards the operation as a 100% successful?
MR P WILLIAMS OBJECTS
MR P WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, is the witness or the applicant required to answer what Mr Bellingan thought?
CHAIRPERSON: Is he not really been asked whether his, in his opinion this was why Bellingan thought it was successful, that people had been killed? Put it differently. Was this what Mr Bellingan, what you thought Mr Bellingan had wanted to achieve.
MR MBELO: That is what I think, Sir.
MR B WILLIAMS: Would you agree, Mr Mbelo, that this was ruthless precision?
MR MBELO: Yes, I agree with you, Sir.
MR B WILLIAMS: Is this the challenge of Vlakplaas work which compelled you to maintain an association with Vlakplaas from 1981 to 1993?
MR MBELO: I was not bound by loving to work at Vlakplaas. I was bound by the situation that prevailed at that moment whilst Vlakplaas was in operation.
MR B WILLIAMS: We will come to your ... (intervention). CHAIRPERSON: Can we go back for a minute? I wonder if you can help me on this, I am a little confused. You have told us that when you first came to the intersection there were no other policemen visible there. Is that correct?
MR MBELO: Yes, Sir, when I was in NY111.
CHAIRPERSON: You drove round the block and while you were behind the building you heard shooting?
MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And when you came back somebody shot your vehicle?
MR MBELO: Yes, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: We have heard that somebody shot Mr Bellingan's vehicle and injured him?
MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: And we have been told about these, one man who was lying in the road already, Jabu and Chris, who was shot.
MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Who was doing all the shooting? At that stage, as I understand it, nobody in your vehicle was shooting.
MR MBELO: I do not understand, Chairperson, are you talking about somebody who was shooting me? Please rephrase your question.
CHAIRPERSON: No, who shot Jabu? Who could have shot him?
MR MBELO: He might have been shot by the policemen who were in NY111, because that is where he fell at the corner of that street.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, what policemen were there?
MR MBELO: Your Honour, as I have explained, according to this map, on the east, the east side bush, there were policemen and on the west side as well. According to my knowledge, the policemen who were at point A are the one who might have shot Jabu.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, that is not according to the evidence we have heard. They said they, Bellingan, as I recollect it, said he saw the body lying there. Were there other policemen, is that what you are now saying, there were other policemen hiding in the bushes along that road?
MR MBELO: Your Honour, there were policemen who had hidden in the bush, according to the briefing at Wingfield in that morning. Those men were positioned there for the attack.
CHAIRPERSON: And they, the, Christopher and the other four men must have walked past them?
MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: And were there also men positioned in the bush on the other side, on the west side?
INTERPRETER: The witness cannot hear the interpretation.
CHAIRPERSON: Were there also policemen hidden in the bushes on the west side of the NY1?
MR MBELO: Yes, Mr Chairman, there were. I cannot hear my interpreter.
CHAIRPERSON: And once you got there, there were four policemen in your vehicle?
MR MBELO: When I passed, when I was with two White Riot Squad members in my car.
CHAIRPERSON: And anybody else?
MR MBELO: I was the driver and the fourth man was Constable Nobela.
CHAIRPERSON: So, there were four policemen there then?
MR MBELO: (Not translated).
CHAIRPERSON: And were the two, the Sergeant who told you to shoot the man who was trying to surrender, where did he come from?
MR MBELO: Your Honour, the policemen on the west side, during the shooting they came nearer to the scene where I was.
CHAIRPERSON: And was he one of those, he was not one of the two Riot Squad people who were in your car?
MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR B WILLIAMS: May I continue, Mr Chairperson?
MR MBELO: (Not translated).
MR B WILLIAMS: Now, just dealing with your position in the intersection, the Chairperson has just dealt with it as well, in your evidence yesterday you confirmed that when you entered the intersection of NY1 and NY3, you were aware that Jabulanie Miya was already down at point B and Christopher Piet was down at point D shortly afterwards, not so?
MR MBELO: I did not hear the last person you mentioned and who was shot before who.
MR B WILLIAMS: When you arrived in the intersection Jabulanie Miya was already down, at point B on your map, and Christopher Piet was down at point D on your map shortly after you arrived in the intersection, that is what you have said, not so?
MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.
MR B WILLIAMS: So, when the beige van, this is the van in which the guerrillas allegedly were, arrives on the scene, there cannot be any question of any further shooting in the intersection, not so?
MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.
MR B WILLIAMS: Because you will agree that neither Zabonke Konile nor Mr Mlifie had used his arm? Do you agree?
MR MBELO: The man I shot did not use his firearm at all and Mr Zabonke, I do not believe he did as well.
MR B WILLIAMS: So, to get to the point, when Captain Bellingan creates the impression that at the time that he shoots Zabonke there are still shots flying around him, he is, most certainly, incorrect, not so?
MR MBELO: I would say he is lying when he says he was shooting from the east side, but there was some shooting still from the west side.
MR B WILLIAMS: And you will agree that that was in the bush, not so?
MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.
MR B WILLIAMS: Do you recall that at the time of the Weaver Trial and at the inquest that bush was measured to be approximately 200 metres to 400 metres away from the intersection?
MR MBELO: I do not recall clearly as to what the distance mentioned there.
MR B WILLIAMS: All right. Something which I do not have clarity on and which I would like you to clarify for us, is that did you first shoot Mr Mlifie or did Captain Bellingan first shoot Zabonke, which came first?
MR MBELO: I would say Mr Bellingan when he shot Mr Zabonke I shot Mr Mlifie immediately after him. After he had shot Mr Zabonke, that is when I shot Mr Mlifie.
MR B WILLIAMS: Right, so there is no question of the shootings occurring simultaneously, not so? The shooting of Mr Zabonke and the shooting of Mr Mlifie, they did not occur simultaneously?
MR MBELO: No, they did not occur simultaneously.
MR B WILLIAMS: Which must mean, then, that by the time you shot Mr Mlifie there were also no shots flying around in the intersection, not so?
MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.
MR B WILLIAMS: Would you agree that the fact, that when one looks at the video and also at the photographs, you can find not a single bullet mark in the beige van, that it must serve to confirm that it could not have been the case that there were shots flying all over the intersection, either when Mr Bellingan shot Zabonke or when you shot Mr Mlifie? Do you agree?
MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.
MR B WILLIAMS: Relating to the question of the killing of Mr Mlifie by yourself, would you tell the Committee who disarmed Mr Mlifie?
MR MBELO: Mlifie's firearm was taken from him, what I did, I threw him down and one of the Riot Squad members disarmed him and that is after Mlifie indicated that he will take us where the rest of the group was.
MR B WILLIAMS: Yes, I understand all that. The question simply is who disarmed him, who took the firearm away from him?
MR MBELO: Chairperson, I do not know the names of these people. It was the first time I worked with them. I do not know their names.
MR B WILLIAMS: You also have no idea who fired the second shot at Mr Mlifie while he was lying on the ground?
MR MBELO: I think it is a Sergeant, but I do not know his name.
MR B WILLIAMS: Is this the same Sergeant whom you allege gave you the instruction to shoot him?
MR MBELO: That is so, Sir.
MR B WILLIAMS: And you say you do not know who this person is?
MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Chairperson.
MR B WILLIAMS: Did you stay by Mr Mlifie's body? Did you stay by ...
MR MBELO: No, Sir.
MR B WILLIAMS: You did not stay there even momentarily whilst Mr Mlifie was lying on the ground after he had been shot?
MR MBELO: It, I was just standing around there, but we were being called to come and identify the bodies that were lying around.
MR B WILLIAMS: Whose idea was it to place Mr Mlifie's firearm back on his body?
MR MBELO: I do not know, Sir, but I think it was for the photo session purpose.
MR B WILLIAMS: What was it intended to convey having put Mr Mlifie's firearm back on him?
MR MBELO: I think it was to show evidence that they were armed.
MR B WILLIAMS: Is it not correct that it was also to show that these people had tried to use their weapons, not so, Mr Mbelo?
MR MBELO: That is the thought that occurred to me at a later stage.
MR B WILLIAMS: That was certainly the statement that you made at the time, Mr Mbelo.
MR MBELO: That is correct.
MR B WILLIAMS: Would you agree that for the same purposes a similar thing could have been done to each of the other deceased apart from Christopher Piet and apart from Mr Mxinwa, who it is alleged, lobbed the hand grenade. What do you say about that?
MR MBELO: That is a very difficult question for me to answer, but according to the things that happened, I would agree with you.
MR B WILLIAMS: As a Vlakplaas operative, Mr Mbelo, do you not think that it was perfectly possible that it could have happened that way?
MR MBELO: Chairperson, Vlakplaas is capable of a lot of things and that is possible also.
MR B WILLIAMS: Perhaps I should just help you. You will recall that in the previous proceedings Mr Mxinwa, and to help you on the plan, that is the person at point Q, had allegedly been found with an undischarged hand grenade lying between his legs, not so?
MR MBELO: Yes, it has appeared even on the photos. That is correct.
MR B WILLIAMS: And you will agree that Mr Mjobo, who is the person allegedly lying at point, the person lying at point S, was found, allegedly found with a pistol at his side which, according to the policemen at the time who had killed him, he had never used. Do you agree?
MR MBELO: That is correct. It has appeared even on TV.
MR B WILLIAMS: And we also know that Mr Jabu Miya, the person who was allegedly found at point B, was also allegedly found with an undischarged hand grenade, not so?
MR MBELO: That is correct.
MR B WILLIAMS: And we now know that your Mr Mlifie had never attempted to use his firearm and yet it was placed back on his body, not so?
MR MBELO: That is so.
MR B WILLIAMS: You remember (end of tape 1A) seeing Captain Liebenberg there on that day?
MR MBELO: Yes, he was present at the scene immediately after the shooting. I saw him walking around together with some other men.
MR B WILLIAMS: Was he not there before the shooting, Mr Mbelo?
MR MBELO: Mr Liebenberg was present even at Wingfield. As to who he was with, I am not positive. At the time of the shooting he was present at the scene nearby.
MR B WILLIAMS: Do you remember the then Major Odendal testifying that Captain Liebenberg and the video crew were in one vehicle? Can you dispute that?
MR MBELO: According to the testimony that has been given, yes, I do remember.
MR B WILLIAMS: Now, would you agree then that the inference is inescapable that Captain Liebenberg and his video crew were right there before the shooting went down and during the shooting, not so?
MR MBELO: I do agree, they were in the vicinity.
MR B WILLIAMS: I want to put it to you that you have seen another video to this incident, apart from the one that the Committee has had the benefit of. What do you say about that?
MR MBELO: I do not agree with you on that aspect.
MR B WILLIAMS: I would ask you to think very carefully about that, Mr Mbelo. What do you say?
MR MBELO: After the shooting we were not shown any other video. This is the video that was shown to us in court.
MR B WILLIAMS: Yes, I am aware this is the video that was shown to you in court. I am talking about a video that you had seen outside of court, do you know about that?
MR MBELO: There is no other video that was shown to me besides the one that was shown in court as well as here. Probably, if it was shown, it was shown to the Whites and their seniors or the people who were in power at that time, but not us.
MR B WILLIAMS: Do I understand you to be acknowledging the existence of another video, but that you have not seen that video?
MR MBELO: What I am saying is that if the cameraman is there when the shooting takes place, it is possible that they made their own video, but that I am not aware of.
MR B WILLIAMS: All right. One last question on the video. Did you see the video crew there at the time that you shot Mr Mlifie, were they very nearby you?
MR MBELO: No, I never saw any camera crew.
MR B WILLIAMS: When you went up in the helicopter was there any camera crew with you?
MR MBELO: Yes, there was a camera man above who was taking photos of the scene of the shooting.
MR B WILLIAMS: Do you recall seeing the same camera man also on the ground that day?
MR MBELO: I do not recall quite well. It is probable that he was there.
MR B WILLIAMS: Can you give the Committee the benefit of this person's name?
MR MBELO: I do not know his name.
MR B WILLIAMS: All right. Now, you have annexed some or you have referred to some documents. I am not going to be too long your Worship, five more minutes, you have referred to some documents in the, in your application, the affidavit, sorry, in this application. I would like to ask you have you read the document called "Planning for a Peoples' War"? Have you read that document?
MR MBELO: I have never read that document.
MR B WILLIAMS: Did you attend the submission, the second submission of the ANC to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, were you there?
MR MBELO: No.
MR B WILLIAMS: Did you read a document titled "The Second Submission of the ANC to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission" dated 12 May 1997?
MR MBELO: That document came to my attention through my attorney.
MR B WILLIAMS: I see. So, if there is any impression created here that you have read any of these documents and that these documents are what strengthened your personal perceptions at the time that this incident happened, that is quite incorrect, not so?
MR MBELO: No, Chairperson.
MR B WILLIAMS: When you say, and I quote on page 243 of the first bundle,
"It is, therefore, perfectly clear ...",
sorry it is the third paragraph, for the benefit of the members of the Committee,
"It is, therefore, perfectly clear that groups who identified with the ANC or the UDF at the time considered the police as legitimate targets and that this strengthened my personal perceptions at the time, that the comrades would have no moral problem attacking us."
That is incorrect, not so?
MR MBELO: Yes, during those years, that is the 80's, we, as the police, were fighting for freedom and we were enemies of the comrades, because we were delaying their fight for liberation.
MR B WILLIAMS: But the perception created here that these documents confirmed your perceptions, that is incorrect, not so?
MR MBELO: These documents never influenced me, but I was influenced by the situation as it prevailed at that time in South Africa.
MR B WILLIAMS: Mr Mbelo, would you tell the Committee, at the time that you were a policeman, which was, approximately, from 1981, you were, you had joined the security police and were shortly thereafter at Vlakplaas, not so? Not so?
MR MBELO: That is so.
MR B WILLIAMS: You personally never lived in the community, not so?
MR MBELO: No, that is not so, I did stay amongst the people.
MR B WILLIAMS: Are we then incorrect if we understand that you stayed at Vlakplaas and you lived, the spent the better part of your time there, as a Vlakplaas operative?
MR MBELO: Chairperson, we were not staying at Vlakplaas. We were going in and out to different provinces as well as different cities and we were meeting the public as we were travelling.
MR B WILLIAMS: Yes, but you were never an uniformed policeman, I mean, you always operated covertly, not so?
MR MBELO: That is correct.
MR B WILLIAMS: So, would you agree that you were not at risk of being attacked as a policeman, because you could never be identified as a policeman, not so?
MR MBELO: I was in danger just like any other policeman, because where I was born there was not any single soul who did not know that I was a policeman. Even my house or my home was in danger of being attacked, because they knew there was a policeman living at that house.
MR B WILLIAMS: I want to put it to you, Mr Mbelo, that you have tried to hide behind orders and circumstances to justify your conduct. You have not come here unequivocally to say to this Committee and the families that you have done wrong. What do you say about that?
MR MBELO: Chairperson, the first thing, if I did not want to tell you what I know about this, I would not have come before this Commission and if I did not want the members of the family to forgive me, I would not have come that. The main reason that I have come before this Commission is to tell this Committee as to what I know about this shooting and the part that I took, because the nation at large does not know about what we were doing at that time and I have come here prepared to face the music of whatever I have done in the past.
MR B WILLIAMS: I will come back to that point in a moment, Mr Mbelo, there is just one other thing I need to clarify with you. You said in your evidence yesterday that Captain Bellingan had changed your affidavit. Would you tell the court, what had you conveyed in your original affidavit?
MR MBELO: Chairperson, even that first affidavit was not a lengthy or an affidavit that went into the depths of all the things that we did and it was structured in such a manner that whatever we did should not appear as an evil deed, but as if the police were doing their job and they were obliged to do so and whatever happened was not written in depth in the first affidavit. It was written according to Mr Bellingan's requirements. So, it was not a true reflection of the events as they took place
MR B WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr Mbelo, but the question that I ask of you is what was your first affidavit? Are you saying to this Committee that your first affidavit said what you are saying to this Committee today about what happened there?
MR MBELO: No.
MR B WILLIAMS: Then would you explain to the Committee why you are trying to create the impression or trying to reflect Captain Bellingan in an even worse light than he already is, in my respectful view, by suggesting that he tampered with your original statement which was the truthful one? Why do you try to create that impression for the Committee?
MR MBELO: It is because my first statement was not going to tally with the statement that he had made, because in my statement I was told to say that this guy was trying to take out his gun on Captain Bellingan. That is what I said on the other statement and they said I should not mention the fact that he had lifted his hands up. I should say that he was trying to shoot at Captain Bellingan or attack him.
MR B WILLIAMS: Are you saying that you would have said in your first statement that the person was surrendering, is that what you are trying to tell the Committee today?
MR MBELO: Not when I was still in Vlakplaas, that though never ever crossed my mind.
MR B WILLIAMS: Precisely. If you look at page 244 of your application, you deal with the question of torture. I would like to ask you a question about that. You say,
"If I did not participate in acts of torture, I would have been regarded as a sell-out and the possibility exists that I could have been killed."
So, once again, you are not saying that you did not want to participate in the torture, you are saying that you were forced to, not so?
MR MBELO: Yes, there were certain things that were happening and if you do not take part you were taken as a sell-out, as if you wanted to side with the liberation fighters.
MR B WILLIAMS: Mr Mbelo, you will agree that you could have been transferred out of Vlakplaas at any stage, you were a policeman, you were not an askari? Do you agree with that?
MR MBELO: Mr Williams, if we can look at the security establishment as a whole, it was not Vlakplaas only that employed assaults or torture as a means of extracting evidence from people. So, it was not difficult for me to move from that place, but it would have remained the same, because the security branch was all over the country.
MR B WILLIAMS: The point that one wants to make is that you had a choice as to whether you wanted to participate in acts of torture. You could have decided to be transferred out of that branch of the police. Do you agree that that was possible?
MR MBELO: That is correct.
MR B WILLIAMS: Once again, you say in your evidence, I was ordered to execute Mr Mlifie, I had no choice, not so?
MR MBELO: Yes, on that aspect it is so.
MR B WILLIAMS: You say that when you lied in previous proceedings you were told to lie, not so?
MR MBELO: That is correct.
MR B WILLIAMS: And if you look at paragraph 26 of your affidavit you say there as a catchall,
"I did not act for personal gain or out of malice, ill-will or spite. At all material times I was acting on the instruction of my superiors.",
not so?
MR MBELO: That is correct.
MR B WILLIAMS: So, you are actually not coming to this Committee to say I know I committed crimes, I have done wrong. You are actually coming to this Committee and saying I have done something wrong, but I had no choice, not so?
MR MBELO: I will say to the Committee I have come here to ask for amnesty, because of the things that I did, but to qualify that, I would say I was coerced into this situation, I had absolutely no choice at that time.
MR B WILLIAMS: You will agree that you have much to gain by this amnesty application, not so?
MR MBELO: Chairperson, you asked me that question yesterday, I said that what I will gain is the trust of the people that I have dismayed and that is all that I need. Even the members of the families, the relatives, friends, I need forgiveness and to gain back the trust.
MR B WILLIAMS: No, Mr Mbelo, what you have to gain by this amnesty application is indemnity for murdering seven people. That is what you have to gain. What do you say about that?
MR MBELO: Chairperson, I have come to ask for forgiveness for killing a man.
MR B WILLIAMS: What has prompted you not or let me ask the question differently. Why have you not, in ten years since this incident, asked for forgiveness? Would you tell the Committee that?
MR MBELO: There was no Truth and Reconciliation Committee or Amnesty Committee, it was only established lately.
MR B WILLIAMS: Do I translate what you are saying to mean that you had nothing to gain?
MR MBELO: Before the establishment of this Committee I did not see as to who was going to forgive me or who was I going to ask forgiveness from, because there was absolutely no mechanism for me to do that.
MR B WILLIAMS: Perhaps you can listen to this proposition, Mr Mbelo. Your Section 29 inquiry occurred on, approximately, the sixth of December last year, not so? Approximately?
MR MBELO: That is correct.
MR B WILLIAMS: Were you confronted with evidence there about askaris who knew about what had happened on that day?
MR MBELO: I do not remember well, it is possible that it happened.
MR B WILLIAMS: You see, because I put it to you that it is a week later that you apply for amnesty. What do you say about that?
MR MBELO: That is correct.
MR B WILLIAMS: Would you agree that there is no flood of conscience here, Mr Mbelo?
MR MBELO: I do not agree with you, because there was a set date after which we could not ask for amnesty. That is why I lodged my application a week thereafter.
MR B WILLIAMS: I want to quote to you why you stayed at Vlakplaas and it has nothing to do with being compelled to, it has nothing to do with political motive. If you have a look at page 375 of your Section 29 statement, I will quote to you the following passage. The question that is asked of you is,
"What was the attraction that was keeping you at Vlakplaas? Just take some time to think and tell us what made you stay at Vlakplaas?",
and your answer, Mr Mbelo, is the following,
"To be honest, ...",
and I dare say you were being honest,
"... Vlakplaas was like a holiday resort. There was not hard work involved, you were only, you were just kept there as an ordinary person. There was enough time to drink alcohol, you had money all the time, it was like a holiday resort to us. It was just the place of making money and having fun and being drunk all the time."
Now, Mr Mbelo, can you explain to the Committee where your political motivation comes from now?
MR MBELO: I will explain it thus. There was not much that was done at Vlakplaas. If we do not have any missions or operations to take care of, there was absolutely nothing to do at Vlakplaas. We remained at the farm just lazing around, but whenever there was work for us to do, we would go out to different places to complete or accomplish our missions.
MR B WILLIAMS: The short answer is, Mr Mbelo, that despite the torture, the death, the cross-border raids, you regarded Vlakplaas as a holiday, not so?
MR MBELO: That is correct.
MR B WILLIAMS: I have no further questions, Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR B WILLIAMS
MS PATEL: May I suggest that we adjourn for tea?
CHAIRPERSON: Very well.
MS PATEL: Would everyone please rise?
HEARING ADJOURNS
TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: (Still under oath).
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL
MS PATEL: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Good afternoon Mr Mbelo, can you hear me?
INTERPRETER: Excuse me, the Tswana interpreter is not yet in the booth. I do not know what is happening.
MR MBELO: I cannot hear nothing.
INTERPRETER: The witness says he has got a problem hearing anything that is coming from the booth. There seems to be a problem. He says his headphone sets are making a lot of noise and he cannot pick up what is being said from the booth.
MS KHAMPEPE: But is there a Tswana translator in the booth?
INTERPRETER: No, I was speaking Tswana to him.
MS KHAMPEPE: Okay.
INTERPRETER: But I am not a Tswana speaker.
MS KHAMPEPE: Can you say something to him?
INTERPRETER: Yes, he says he can hear me, but I am, I sound very dim and low. The headsets, headphone set is making a lot of noise. He cannot pick up what is being said.
MS KHAMPEPE: Can you request the technician to attend to him, please?
MR MBELO: It is making noise.
INTERPRETER: He cannot pick up anything.
MR P WILLIAMS: Hello, Mr Chairman, this headphones are defective. There is something wrong with the ... (intervention).
MS KHAMPEPE: I think it is not only that.
CHAIRPERSON: It is now on channel three, I am told, not channel four.
MR MBELO: That was channel three, Mr Chairman.
INTERPRETER: He cannot pick up any sound from the booth.
MS KHAMPEPE: I think there is something wrong with channel three.
INTERPRETER: The technician says he is going to fix the problem up.
MS KHAMPEPE: Yes.
INTERPRETER: There is something wrong with the ... (intervention).
MS KHAMPEPE: With channel three.
INTERPRETER: Yes.
MS KHAMPEPE: Because even with our microphones there is a serious interference.
INTERPRETER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON: We have been asked to adjourn and I have been told that there is something terribly wrong with the sound system. We will adjourn for a few minutes, I hope.
MS PATEL: Would everyone please rise?
HEARING ADJOURNS
TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: (Still under oath).
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL (cont)
MS PATEL: Mr Mbelo, can you hear me?
MR MBELO: I can hear you clearly.
MS PATEL: Just to pick up on a few points, Mr Mbelo. You stated under cross-examination that torture was one of the methods that was commonly used at Vlakplaas?
MR MBELO: That is correct, I said that.
MS PATEL: You said, further, that it was one of the most effective means of eliciting information from whoever was being tortured? Is that correct?
MR MBELO: That is so.
MS PATEL: Could you briefly explain, not the methods of torture that were being used, but what was done with the information once it was gained from the parties after the torture had taken place?
MR MBELO: After getting the information from the person we used it to make some follow-ups and we would actually get whatever we want from that person.
MS PATEL: Would the information then be used in order to be processed through the proper judicial system, through lawful means in order to effect arrests and bring people to court?
MR MBELO: Yes, many a time it did happen like that.
MS PATEL: So, then, given what had happened in Guguletu on that morning, if these people were arrested information could surely then have been elicited from them in order for them to be brought to justice?
MR MBELO: That is correct.
MS PATEL: Just to move on to a different point. When you had infiltrated this group, can you recall more or less whether any people that you had seen then were then subsequently part of the group that was killed?
MR MBELO: Yes, I think so, it is like that.
MS PATEL: Did you at any stage relay this information to the subsequent infiltrators who went in, namely Mr Mbane and Mr Maluleka?
MR MBELO: No, I did not give Mr Maluleka or Mbane this information, but I forwarded it to Bellingan who was my Commander at that time, together with Mr Liebenberg.
MS PATEL: All right. During your time there can you, perhaps, give us an indication of what kind of information, specifically, was then relayed back to Mr Bellingan and Mr Liebenberg?
MR MBELO: I did not have much information, because I did not remain for a long time with these men, but what I gave them was the information to the effect that I had been given an address, that is this persons address, whilst I was at this cell before I was taken to these men where they had congregated.
CHAIRPERSON: So, you were given an address in the cell and did you go there and find these people congregated there?
MR MBELO: No, Chairperson, the address I had been given was to the brother's place and I went there to see him. He is the one who took me to where these men had congregated or where they use to congregate.
MS PATEL: Mr Mbelo, did you get any information from this group about what kind of activities they were involved in or where they lived?
MR MBELO: What I saw when I got there was that these people were liberation fighters or sympathisers. I could say comrades and they were doing patrols during the night. That is all that I was able to glean or get when I got there.
MS PATEL: When you came back and reported to Mr Bellingan...
MR MBELO: Yes, I went back to Mr Bellingan to report.
MS PATEL: The impression given is that you were afraid after you had spent the night with this group. Could you, perhaps, give us more information or explain more fully why exactly it is that you were afraid?
MR MBELO: What made me to get scared was that I was told that they would go and phone the number that I had given them in order to verify the fact that I had been sent by these people to the Western Cape.
MS PATEL: What did you think would happen to you if they had found out that you were an infiltrator?
MR MBELO: I thought I could possibly be necklaced.
MS PATEL: Why did you think that?
MR MBELO: It is because during the previous years it was a very common thing for informers or infiltrators to be necklaced.
MS PATEL: Is it correct, then, to say that you then came to the conclusion that your life was in danger, not because of anything specific that the group had said or done towards you, but because of your knowledge of other incidents, perhaps, that had taken place?
MR MBELO: Chairperson, they even told me that I must not try to run away, because they would catch up with me, it was at night and I would not be able to get away. That is what made me even more scared.
MS PATEL: Was this your first time at trying to infiltrate a group?
MR MBELO: Yes, that is correct with regard to people who had been trained.
MS PATEL: How did you know they were trained? Is this because of the information that was forwarded to you by Mr Bellingan and Mr Liebenberg?
MR MBELO: Yes, that is correct, I acted upon information that I got from Captain Liebenberg as well as Mr Bellingan.
MS PATEL: So, except for the fact that or for the impression that you gained that they were doing patrols, you had no further information or nothing further had occurred during your stay there with them to substantiate the information that Mr Bellingan and Mr Liebenberg had given to you regarding the fact of whether they were trained or not?
MR MBELO: No, there is nothing that happened besides that.
MS PATEL: Thank you. To move on to another point then. Just generally, my learned colleague, Mr Williams, Brent Williams, has touched on it. Just in terms of the weapons at the scene, from the data that we have and just from various applications that other people have made, that it was part of the modus operandi at Vlakplaas that in certain instances when an operation needed to be covered up, that weapons were planted at bodies. What is your comment?
MR MBELO: With regard to putting weapons on peoples' bodies, I had never been involved in such a situation, but what I know is that the commanders of the groups, that is the Whites, many a time they had some Russian made weapons in their cars as well as grenades. They were kept in their cars.
MS PATEL: For what purpose were these weapons kept in their cars?
MR MBELO: I would not be able to comment on that, but I know that they use to keep such weapons in their cars.
MS PATEL: All right. Just to go back to the scene. You will, however, confirm that when Mr Mlifie was killed, was shot and killed, he was unarmed?
MR MBELO: When Mr Mlifie was shot he had a gun on his body and it was not in his hands.
MS PATEL: Was the evidence not that the gun, that he was disarmed, that the gun was taken away from him?
MR MBELO: Yes, he was disarmed first, then he was shot. By the time he was shot, he had no gun on him.
MS PATEL: Yet, in the photographs we see him laying with a gun on his abdomen area. Is that correct, do you confirm that?
MR MBELO: That is correct, on the photos that is how it appears.
MS KHAMPEPE: May I interpose, Ms Patel. Mr Mbelo, who disarmed Mr Mlifie?
MR MBELO: If I remember well, I took Mr Mlifie's gun.
MS KHAMPEPE: Were you instructed by any person to do that?
MR MBELO: Such instructions to disarm a person, when you are a policeman you do not need specific instructions to disarm a suspect, but that is what I just thought I had to do as a policeman.
CHAIRPERSON: My recollection of your evidence a short while ago is that you said one of the White policeman took his gun? Did you say that?
MR MBELO: I want to put this in perspective. I said I took the gun from him and gave it to one of the White policeman.
MS KHAMPEPE: That is not what you said, with due respect, Mr Mbelo. You made it quite clear that Mr Mlifie was disarmed by a policeman, it was not clear to me whether that policeman was the same policeman that subsequently instructed you to shoot him. That is how I recollect your evidence. That is why I was asking you at whose instructions did you disarm him.
MR MBELO: Maybe I was not understood quite well or I did not get it through well. I took the gun from the person and I gave it to the White officer whom I said I did not know, but he actually instructed me to shoot.
CHAIRPERSON: What you said was,
I threw him down and one of the Riot Squad disarmed him. This is after he said he would take us to where the others were."
MR MBELO: The things happened fast that day. It is possible that that is the answer that I gave and it is possible that I made a mistake. I do remember pushing him down.
MS KHAMPEPE: Which version should we now accept? (end of tape 1B).
MR MBELO: I do concede that I made a mistake. The version that you should accept is that I pushed him down, I disarmed him and I gave, I handed over his gun to the White officer.
MS PATEL: May I ... (intervention).
MS KHAMPEPE: You may proceed, Ms Patel.
MS PATEL: Thank you Ms Khampepe.
Mr Mbelo, the point I wish to make, though, is that at the time when Mr Mlifie was killed or immediately after he was shot, he did not have a firearm in his possession, yet afterwards, both on the police video and in the photographs, we see a gun lying on his abdomen. Do you confirm that?
MR MBELO: Yes, I confirm that, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Do you then accept, as an inescapable inference, that that weapon that one sees on the video, had then been placed on the body of Mr Mlifie?
MR MBELO: Yes, I agree with the Commission that that video was actually placed on his body after he died.
MS PATEL: I am sorry, perhaps, there is a problem with the translation. Is it the video or the weapon that was placed on the body?
MR MBELO: I am saying to this Commission the weapon that is seen in the video was actually placed on Mr Mlifie after his death.
MS PATEL: Thank you, Mr Mbelo. Can you recall, I know it took a long, it took place a long ago, can you recall whether any other weapons were placed besides the bodies of any of the other victims on that day?
MR MBELO: I do not remember seeing any other bodies being placed, with weapons being placed next to them, but as we went around we realised that there were weapons next to these people as it appeared on the photos and the video.
ADV MOTATA: Mr Mbelo, in respect of Mlifie, did you actually see the weapon placed on his abdomen?
MR MBELO: Your Honour, when this weapon was placed on his body, I did not see. Can I go on?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV MOTATA: Yes.
MR MBELO: Because when I saw the photographs I was very surprised to see this on his abdomen when I actually knew that it was actually removed from him originally.
MS PATEL: Did you bring this to anyones attention when you noticed that there was a firearm on the body that was not there before?
MR MBELO: No, I never brought this to anyones attention.
MS PATEL: Would you care to explain why not, Mr Mbelo?
MR MBELO: Your Honour, the photographs were produced during the Weaver Trial and we had already given our statements regarding this matter.
MS PATEL: Were the photographs shown to you at the Weaver Trial?
MR MBELO: Yes, we were shown the photos and we were asked to confirm as to these other men who were shot on that day.
MS PATEL: Why did you then not, at that stage, inform the court or your superior that that photograph is not a true reflection of what, in fact, had taken place on that day?
MR MBELO: You, Chairperson, as I have previously mentioned that the evidence given in the Weaver Trial was not true and thus I did not point out that this man was not actually lying in the original position and the weapon was not there initially.
MS PATEL: Are you now also saying to us that the body had been moved from the position that it was in when he was shot and killed?
MR MBELO: The body was not removed from where it was, but there was nothing on his body when he died. I am talking about the firearm placed during the photo session. When I left him there was no firearm on his body.
ADV MOTATA: Mr Mbelo, you said you first shot Mlifie and subsequently somebody said something nasty and he shot him in the stomach. Was he lying in the same position as we see him on the photograph with the weapon on his stomach?
MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.
MS PATEL: So, then the position that you refer to is the positioning of the weapon, not of the body?
MR MBELO: Your Honour, I am talking about the firearm, not the bodies position.
MS PATEL: Are you then also saying, Mr Mbelo, that the reason you did not bring this to anyones attention was because you knew that the entire operation was a sham, that is had been planned the way it is being brought out here today and that it did not really make a difference at the end of the day whether the weapon was planted there or not or for you to bring it to anyones attention, because you, together with the rest of the people who were involved in the operation, had already, by agreement, whether tacitly or not, had agreed that these men were going to be ambushed and killed?
MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.
MS PATEL: There is just one last point then, Mr Mbelo, and, once again, my colleague, Mr Williams, Brent Williams, has dealt with this, but perhaps you can to this Committee why exactly you are applying for amnesty? What is your main motivation? I am motivated by the fact that I made a mistake, I shot an unarmed person and I did this under orders and also I was serving the Government and trying to maintain the Government of the day as well in power, to keep it in power.
MS PATEL: What are your views now on the Government?
MR MBELO: The present Government, I feel very ashamed as to the role I played in delaying the efforts of the liberation fighters to bring the liberation that we have today.
MS PATEL: How does one know that you are sincere, Mr Mbelo, that you are not here just to get amnesty so that you will not be charged for the crime, the heinous crime that you have committed?
MR MBELO: I am saying this from the depth of my heart, your Honour.
ADV MOTATA: Mr Mbelo, when you were employed by the South African Police, what was the understanding of your job, to prevent crime or to support the previous Government, what was your impression then?
MR MBELO: When I joined the police force, the aim was to fight crime.
MS PATEL: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions for this witness.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Have you re-examination or ...
MR P WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, with your permission, just a few questions I would like to clear up with the applicant.
CHAIRPERSON: Well (...indistinct) anyway, would you prefer that we adjourn till then and you can (...indistinct) your questions.
MR P WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, I do not think I will be longer than five to seven minutes.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, I am going to adjourn till 02H15 anyway, (...indistinct) finish in seven minutes.
MS PATEL: Mr Chair, ...
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.
CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct) you will not prevent the adjournment.
MS PATEL: Mr Chairperson, perhaps before you, it is me, sorry, perhaps, before you make that decision, may I bring to your attention that the witness has now acquired legal representation, I have been asked to place on record that his council is, unfortunately, involved in a trial, he is not able to come here today. His request, however, is that the matter then be postponed to a time where we can mutually arrange a date.
CHAIRPERSON: We now have a request from the advocate who is going to, I understand he is, the potential witness has been given legal aid and an advocate has been appointed and can we then place on record that that advocate has indicated that he is not available to appear here at the present time, but would request an adjournment of the proceedings to a date to be arranged to enable him to take proper instructions from his client and, I imagine, to familiarise himself with the evidence that has been led. Is that the position.
MS PATEL: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: It seems to me a perfectly reasonable request in the circumstances. I do not know if any of the other legal practitioners would like to comment on it, but if we all know who the potential witness is and his evidence would, I imagine, take quite a long time and would require a, if it is done properly, a thorough research into the previous history. So, very well then, we will continue and try to finish these proceedings now.
How many minutes did you say, because I was told that the last questioner was going to take five minutes?
MR P WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, I can tell you I will be no longer than five minutes. May I proceed, Mr Chairman. Thank you.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR P WILLIAMS
MR P WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, in the process I have just lost a page. I have been ...
Mr Mbelo, I cannot find the page now, but my learned colleague, Mr Williams, referred you to a page with your testimony at the Section 29 hearings where you allegedly mentioned that the fact why you preferred Vlakplaas is because you use to have regular braais and parties.
CHAIRPERSON: Page 375.
MR P WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Is that why you preferred to be based at Vlakplaas rather than at an ordinary police station?
MR MBELO: No, that is not the reason.
MR P WILLIAMS: Can you tell the Committee what is the reason why you were, why you preferred Vlakplaas?
MR MBELO: It is because Vlakplaas was different from other branches. We tried to rehabilitate all men who came from across the borders and, but all these things use to happen there.
MR P WILLIAMS: Now, Mr Mbelo, on ... (intervention).
CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, perhaps we should have another bit on record. The passage at 375 which you were referred to earlier, said
"It was a place of making money and having fun and being drunk all the time."
Do you remember that? Do you remember that was put to you?
MR MBELO: Yes, your Honour.
CHAIRPERSON: And you explained at page 376, line ten,
"The money that I am talking about, other than a salary, when you go out for the whole month, you claim allowances, your travelling allowances and that extra money at that time made quite a difference."
Is that also true?
MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir, but in other branches such things were not available. It would take time before you can go anywhere with your work or travelling.
MR P WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Mr Mbelo, in paragraph nine of your application, that is page 238, you say that,
"At Vlakplaas we use to have braais, drinking and partying on a regular basis and often I saw top brass from the police headquarters. On one occasion I saw then Minister Adriaan Vlok there and the purpose of these events and visits were to uplift the morale of the staff who were based there so that we could be more effective in our duty."
Now, is the actual reason why you preferred Vlakplaas that you had these kind of morale builders, which was absent at normal police stations?
MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, your Honour.
MR P WILLIAMS: And, then just two last questions, how ... (intervention).
MS KHAMPEPE: Before you proceed, Mr Williams, Mr Mbelo, how do you know that that was the purpose of the visit by Mr Adriaan Vlok and others? How do you come to that conclusion?
MR MBELO: When Mr Adriaan Vlok was around he use to encourage us and tell us about the good work that we were doing as members of Vlakplaas. He was encouraging us with our good work.
MR P WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
The second-last question, at the time when you were based at Vlakplaas, how did, and at the time of this specific incident, what was your attitude towards the ANC and to people aligned to the ANC?
MR MBELO: During those years whilst I was in Vlakplaas, I was an enemy and also regarded the ANC as an enemy and also it was an enemy towards my colleagues, especially my colleagues on Vlakplaas, because we were working with ex-MK members and there were many of them.
MR P WILLIAMS: And then my very last question. What is your political motive for participating in this particular incident or for being part of this incident?
MR MBELO: The political motivation for taking part in this particular event is because I was working for a group led by the Government of the day and the duty of Vlakplaas was to keep the past Government in power and to ensure that the liberation movements do not overthrow it at all.
MR P WILLIAMS: I have got no further questions, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR P WILLIAMS
JUDGE MILLER: Mr Mbelo, you said that prior to shooting Mr Mlifie you threw him to the ground, is that correct?
MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, your Honour.
JUDGE MILLER: Then you received, what you say, was an order to shoot him and you then shot him. Could, how far away were you from him when you shot him and was he still on the ground at the time of the shooting?
MR MBELO: Chairperson, he was still on the ground and I was very close to him. I would say I was right on top of him. That is how near I was to him or how close.
JUDGE MILLER: And on what part of the body did you shoot him?
MR MBELO: Chairperson, I shot him on the left-hand side of his head.
JUDGE MILLER: And were you of the opinion that your shot was deadly, was fatal, that you killed him?
MR MBELO: Your Honour, I am not sure whether I killed him instantly or not. Up till this day I am not sure.
JUDGE MILLER: Why do you think that that Sergeant that you were a bad shot if you were standing over him, such a close range and you hit him in the head?
MR MBELO: I do not know why. Perhaps, it is because he had, he was not dead yet.
JUDGE MILLER: Can you think of any reason why that Sergeant, himself, then shot Mr Mlifie in the stomach?
MR MBELO: I do not have any other reason that I can think of.
JUDGE MILLER: Yes.
ADV MOTATA: Mr Mbelo, at what stage did you disarm him, whilst he was standing or lying on the ground?
MR MBELO: I did this whilst he was lying on the ground.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Mbelo, you have testified that Mr Odendal, who was the most senior, in the morning of the third of March, when instructions were given to execute the operation, you testified yesterday that Mr Odendal made no mention to the words like "take out" or "sweep". Is that still your evidence?
MR MBELO: That is still my evidence, your Honour.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.
MS KHAMPEPE: You remember the evidence that you gave during the Section 29 hearing in which you stated that you were given clear, chrystally clear instructions at Wingfield, as a group, that these people were not to be arrested, but were to be killed. Do you remember that kind of evidence that you gave during your Section 29 hearing?
MR MBELO: Chairperson, I remember, but not very clearly. I said this, because Mr Odendal said that as soon as they raise their arms or they produce their arms, you should fight back. That is what Mr Odendal said.
MS KHAMPEPE: Can you page to 321, Mr Mbelo. I just need clarity whether this is, in fact, what you said. You were quoted as saying, I think there is a question or a statement which is being put to you by Adv Potgieter.
"Sergeant Mbelo, that is line ten. What I am interested in is that at the meeting at Wingfield at that morning, meeting with officers and yourselves and colleagues from Vlakplaas, everybody present at that meeting was left under no illusion, it was made clear, these people had to be taken. There is no question of arrest."
MR MBELO: It is so.
MS KHAMPEPE: Do you see your response and just go to line 24? Do you see your response there too?
MR MBELO: I see it very clearly, your Honour.
MS KHAMPEPE: So, are you now saying that even though he did not say you must sweep these people into their graves or take them out, he nevertheless gave you the impression that you had to kill them?
MR MBELO: He did not give the orders or instructions to, that they should be killed, but all the people who played a role or key role players in that meeting or, perhaps, to call them the owners of the meeting, people like Mr Bellingan were coming from them, that these people should be removed. Even when we were approaching the intersection of these streets we knew exactly what was going to happen to these people.
MS KHAMPEPE: Okay, I will leave that one. Can you turn to page 247 of your affidavit. Now, at paragraph 22 you state that you are aware that Jimmy and Eric had weapons in their possession and that at the time when they fled, they left the weapons in the bush. How do you know this?
MR MBELO: I knew this after the event when I met with Jimmy and Eric in Koeberg.
MS KHAMPEPE: Is that what they told you after the event?
MR MBELO: That is so. I remember clearly when Jimmy asked Mr Bellingan as to whether he found those weapons where they had put them.
MS KHAMPEPE: But was that made clear to you by Mr Mbane that this was the position as reflected here in your affidavit?
MR MBELO: Yes, I got this from Mr Mbane.
MS KHAMPEPE: Now, you were sent to infiltrate this group through a certain person by the name of Sipho, that you ended up sharing a cell with at Guguletu Police Station?
MR MBELO: Yes, your Honour.
MS KHAMPEPE: And as a result of the information you obtained from Sipho you were able to visit the brother?
MR MBELO: Yes, your Honour.
MS KHAMPEPE: I just want to get some information. What is it that you said to Sipho's brother that made him to immediately take you to the group in question?
MR MBELO: I said to Sipho's brother I was being held with his brother in the cells, because I was suspected of throwing a hand grenade and I further told him that there was no clear evidence, thus my lawyer managed to release me and I was on my way to tell the freedom fighters in the Western Cape that the person who was supposed to bring them arms was shot in the Western Transvaal and thus he cannot come and, therefore, I had substituted him.
MS KHAMPEPE: And when you were taken to that group, how many people did you find there?
MR MBELO: When I arrived there there were about 20 men in a house, inside the house and what I realised, most of them believed in Rastafarian belief.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you, Mr Mbelo.
ADV MOTATA: Mr Mbelo, just something that emanated from my sister here, that Major Odendal and Lieutenant Liebenberg would have been the seniors in the Western Cape or in the Peninsula and we look at Sergeant Bellingan, would have been a junior, would I be right?
MR MBELO: Chairperson, yes, it is so.
ADV MOTATA: Now, if orders were to be given, amongst the three, who had to be listened to?
MR MBELO: According to their ranks, it would be the eldest, your Honour. That would be Mr Odendal.
CHAIRPERSON: By the eldest there do you mean the most senior?
MR MBELO: I am referring to the ranks, Sir.
ADV MOTATA: Now, when you were sent from Vlakplaas with your colleague, Sergeant Bellingan, were you to take over or work under Major Odendal and Lieutenant Liebenberg?
MR MBELO: Chairperson, we were under our commanders in Vlakplaas. They were taking instructions, Mr Bellingan would listen to what Mr Liebenberg instructed.
ADV MOTATA: Let us take an instance of the meeting at Wingfield. You were all there, is it not so, with Liebenberg, at least?
MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.
ADV MOTATA: And, please help me, my impression at this moment is that instructions were given there and not separately, like for instance, if you were to be called aside by Bellingan?
MR MBELO: Yes, instructions were given in this one meeting, your Honour, but it happened that after the meeting there was murmuring to the effect that, everybody was aware how police were being attacked and everybody should see how they defend themselves.
MS KHAMPEPE: But there were instructions from Mr Odendal as to what had to happen in the execution of the operation and yesterday you told us what a good cop was. That a good cop was the one who acted in accordance with the instructions given by his senior.
MR MBELO: Your Honour, it is true, but in this situation and in the meeting held in Wingfield, Mr Odendal said his bit, but after his, after this, when the security branch was given a chance to say its bit, they gave their own orders as we were different units there and stated it clearly to us that these men were heavily armed and dangerous. One other thing which I have already mentioned in my application is that Mr Bellingan and Mr Liebenberg were having problems with certain individuals in Guguletu and it was rumoured that if these people can be removed from Guguletu and they were also attacking the Wit Doeke, so if they can be removed, Guguletu will be peaceful and quiet.
MS KHAMPEPE: So, you actually acted on rumours, you did not act on the instructions of Mr Odendal? That is what you are telling us?
MR MBELO: No, your Honour, I did not follow rumours, that is what we were told, because after our meeting we stood aside and we were told that, boys, this is the time to remove these men, because this has been long planned and we had to find these people or get them.
CHAIRPERSON: As I understand the evidence, Major Odendal was not a member of the Security Police, although he was in charge of this operation, is that so?
MR MBELO: Mr Odendal, I do not know which branch was he representing, but on Security Branch side was represented by Mr Liebenberg.
MS KHAMPEPE: But, you know, I have a problem with this particular piece of evidence, Mr Mbelo, because in your application you make it quite abundantly clear that the instructions were not to arrest the members of the group and you say this, you do not qualify it as this having been a private instructions from Mr Bellingan and not only in this case, but you had an opportunity to give evidence before the people who were conducting the Section 29 hearing and you still insisted that no instructions, I mean, specific instructions were given to take them out and sweep them whilst you had congregated as a group of policemen.
Now you are saying there was a private meeting after general instructions had been given by Mr Odendal in which such words like "take them out" or "sweep" were used. I am finding it very difficult to understand what you are trying to tell us.
MR MBELO: Chairperson, in this meeting of ours Mr Odendal said his bit as stating that we must prevent the attack on this Kombi. He did not mention anything about arresting these people, but stressed that we must prevent this attack. The members of our branch commented on what was being planned and they came up with the words that these people must be wiped or removed.
CHAIRPERSON: I do not think we can continue longer, we will have to take the adjournment now and then we can continue. I had hoped we would finish, but it appears we will not. We will now take an adjournment till half past two.
MS PATEL: Would everyone please rise?
HEARING ADJOURNS
TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: (Still under oath).
CHAIRPERSON: Has anybody got any further questions arising out of what has been put? Why was I not told this at 20 to two? Well, I am sorry to have got you all back here, but we will now adjourn then ... (intervention).
MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, may I just, perhaps, one aspect. It was apparent yesterday when my learned friend, Ms Patel, led the evidence or questioned the first applicant, Mr Bellingan, that the, what she put about the evidence of Jimmy Mbane that it went a lot wider than what is contained in his statement and one does not want to have a situation where you hear a lot of evidence and then once again we have got to say to your Lordship we need an adjournment now to consult about this. I wonder if it would not be practical to obtain, in the form of a statement, those additional aspects and then we can, at least, prepare adequately, consult adequately and it would not necessary to waste more time.
CHAIRPERSON: I do not know if the additional aspects came as a result of a statement or merely as a result of a consultation.
MS PATEL: It came as a result of the consultation for which I requested a postponement, if my learned colleague will remember.
MR BOOYENS: No, I appreciate that, M'Lord, but what I am suggesting is, perhaps, those, the fact of that consultation can be put in writing, in the form of a statement, if possible, and then we will waste less time, but I think it is entirely up to my learned friend.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, before, I think it is extremely probable that before we meet again we will have seen a transcript of the evidence. Could we leave it on the basis that once that is so, that if there are any matters in the transcript which you think you would like further information about, you can communicate with Ms Patel or if she notices anything that she thinks further, that you should be given an opportunity of preparing, she will notify you.
Before we, well, I propose now to adjourn to a date to be arranged and I would urgently request the council and attorneys to consult now with Mr Martin Coetzee with a view to, if possible, arranging a date now while they are all here and I hope they all have their diaries. I would estimate we would require at least another three days. Do you think three is safe? You are not binding yourself to go longer, but if we ...
MR BOOYENS: I think it is, M'Lord.
CHAIRPERSON: If you could tell Mr Coetzee that and ask him to fix three days.
I mentioned also the matter of possibly hearing the rest of the matters involving the applicant, but I am told that, I do not know quite where he gets his information from, that there are about 20 to 24 other people involved. So, its, be not just the matter of setting down the applicants hearings and saying, well, we will deal with those in a few days. It is a question of juggling around. You might mention it to Mr Coetzee and see, Mr Booyens, if you and he agree which matters require a hearing and which can be disposed of. There may be some that, technically, require a hearing, but we will only take a few, shorter time. If you could discuss that with him, because I would like to do them all at once. I do not think it is right, fair on the applicant that he should be required to present himself here ten times.
MR BOOYENS: I will do that, M'Lord.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Very well, this matter will now be adjourned to a date to be arranged.
I see that I have been overheard in what I said, so you will not have to explain why you have come to see him, he is standing there waiting for you and will not let you go without talking to him.
HEARING ADJOURNS TO LATER DATE TO BE ARRANGED
