Amnesty Hearings

MICHAEL BELLINGAN - AM 2880/96

CHAIRPERSON: For the purposes of the record, it is Wednesday, 14 April 1999. It is the continuation of the amnesty application of Mr Michael Bellingan, AM2880/86. The matter was postponed on Monday past, in order to enable the new counsel representing Mr Bellingan, some further time to prepare to deal with the matter and for the cross-examination of Mr Bellingan which has not been completed at the last session, to be continued.

Mr Hattingh, we assume that your presence indicates that you are still on board?

MR HATTINGH: That is correct Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. I think it was Mr Chaskalson who still had to cross-examine?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, before Mr Chaskalson proceeds, an affidavit has been made available to the parties, I think the affidavit has been made available to yourself, I am not sure, of Edward James Botha from the South African Airways. I just want to put that on record.

This affidavit was produced from our side, and we made it available to all parties. I think it is important if one, if it has any relevance to introduce it as soon as possible in the proceedings, as it pleases you.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Chairman, maybe I could also be of some help here, you will notice that you have in fact got three documents in front of you and what I thought we could do is just mark each of these as Annexures and I will give you a brief history as to where they have come from.

In no particular order, if you want to maybe begin with the affidavit from Edward James Botha, our last Annexure, if my records are correct, was Annexure D, so I would suggest that that becomes Annexure E. This is an affidavit that was handed in by the Legal Resources Centre.

The next document is a statement, it is also an affidavit of Renata Bellingan. We can call that one Annexure F and that was handed in this morning from Strydom Britz attorneys.

Then the third document is a letter dated the 13th of April 1999, from Mr Britz of Strydom Britz attorneys, which was also handed in this morning and Mr Britz had indicated that he would like this to be before the Committee. It deals with the issue of Adv Du Plessis.

Then at the close of the last hearing, the applicant handed in two documents. These documents have been distributed to everyone under cover of fax and they are in your bundle, under cover of a memo from myself.

The documents, the first document is an application for legal representation at State costs, in regard to the functions of the TRC and that one can become Annexure H.

CHAIRPERSON: The letter from Strydom Britz, is G? The application for legal assistance or legal representation?

MR CHASKALSON: That should be Annexure H.

CHAIRPERSON: H?

MR CHASKALSON: And then the last annexure for the moment, is a hand-written note, which begins at paragraph 10 and carries on to paragraph 24, and that should be called Annexure I, that was also in that memo that I had sent to you people.

I am still not complete, because there are a further two affidavits. The first one, you will also find them in the memo that I handed to you, is an affidavit from Gerrit Nicholas Erasmus, which will be J. Then finally an affidavit from Alfred Oosthuizen, which will be K.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it has been noted as such Mr Chaskalson. I assume that the rest of the parties are in possession of these documentation.

MR CHASKALSON: That is correct, I am not certain if the applicant himself has been provided with a copy, but his legal representatives, have. If he is to be questioned on any of the issues, we will provide him with a copy.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, may I interrupt please. I have the originals of Exhibits J and K with me, and I will hand it to you, that is the affidavits of Mr Erasmus and Oosthuizen, and then one other issue through you, Mr Chairman, I am not sure what Exhibit F is. If I can just ask Mr Chaskalson, Exhibit F, what was that?

CHAIRPERSON: Exhibit F, is that the statement of Mrs Bellingan?

MR CHASKALSON: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have that Mr Wagener? You don't have that? Can you arrange for Mr Wagener to get a copy of that?

MR CHASKALSON: Yes ... (microphone not on)

CHAIRPERSON: I then assume that everybody else is in possession of the documents, E to K which Mr Chaskalson referred to. Mr Chaskalson, would you like to have the oath re-administered to Mr Bellingan?

MR CHASKALSON: As you please, Mr Chairman.

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may sit down. Mr Chaskalson?

EXAMINATION BY MR CHASKALSON: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Bellingan, at the initial hearing of this matter, you gave extensive evidence and were then ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaskalson, I am sorry. Can the sound people just, there is an echo that is very distractive.

Are you saying that we have to live with this? All right. Yes, we apologise, it seems as if the acoustics are not as it ought to be. It might be a better idea for the headphones to be used, so as to be able to better follow the proceedings.

Mr Bellingan, have you got headphones, are you able to deal with this acoustic problem?

MR BELLINGAN: Excuse me Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Can you hear without difficulty?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, thank you, I can hear.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, all right. I think you can proceed Mr Chaskalson.

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Bellingan, let's try again. At the first hearing, you were extensively examined, you led your evidence and then you were extensively cross-examined. I am going to try not to revisit most of those issues, in an effort to expedite proceedings, but there are a number of issues that I would like to clarify with you.

The first of those relate to your relationship with your late wife. You had testified to us previously that as far as you were concerned, that your relationship with Janine was generally a good relationship, given the normal ups and downs of a marriage, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: I think I did qualify that as well, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Would you care to tell us how you viewed that relationship then? My impression was that you thought that it was a good one, in fact you had testified that at the time of the murder, you found it very difficult to kill Janine because you were still in love with her, and you in a sense divorced your personal from your operational side of your being?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman. A marriage is not a neatly packaged entity, it comprises of various different aspects and in so far as we had two fantastic children, in so far as we had most of the things, most of the necessities in life, we had a lovely house, we had lovely pets. In so far as those things were concerned, that was always good Mr Chairman.

In so far as we had differences of opinion, arguments, that was a problem so that I would agree with the findings of the Inquest Court that perhaps that aspect on average, as the magistrate said, someone could reach the conclusion that the marriage was troubled.

But in so far as certain other aspects of the marriage were concerned, at times, they were fantastic and at times, they were not so good, for example things, I don't want to mention, but which would give me an indication that things were good between Janine and I on a very intimate level and in as far as that is concerned, at the time of the incident, it was very good.

MR CHASKALSON: In your view, Mr Bellingan, the marriage wasn't troubled? There was normal difficulties, there were arguments and such, but on the balance, it was a good marriage?

MR BELLINGAN: As I have said, I agree with the magistrate that perhaps on average someone could ...

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, I am not asking you whether somebody else thinks, I am asking you what you think.

MR BELLINGAN: My opinion is that it was besides the ups and downs, it was good.

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you, that is what I had thought. You initially met Janine with a view to recruitment, I am sorry, I may be simplifying issues because I am trying to cover issues quickly. If you aren't happy, just stop me and put in more detail.

You said that you had initially met Janine with a view to some form of recruitment, but instead the two of you had fell in love with one another, and you decided that that wouldn't be a good idea as you were having a relationship?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: At some stage you moved in with one another and the next step was, you were married?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And you were both in love with one another?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And you wished to spend the rest of your life with her?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And you had two children with her?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And you said they gave you much pleasure?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And Janine had the same feelings of love for you?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And this continued throughout your relationship, notwithstanding the normal ups and downs?

MR BELLINGAN: It would be impossible to answer a yes or a no to that one Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay.

MR BELLINGAN: It was obviously at a certain point in time, this thing of living permanently together for the rest of our lives, was not going to happen.

MR CHASKALSON: Why do you say that Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: That is apropos the decision to neutralise Janine.

MR CHASKALSON: But that was not Janine’s decision and Janine was not aware of the fact that she was about to be murdered?

MR BELLINGAN: I think she may have had some idea.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay. Do you think Janine was still in love with you at the time when you murdered her? You were certainly still in love with her?

MR BELLINGAN: We were in love with each other then, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Correct. Did Janine ever accuse you of having an affair?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, she made remarks to that extent some or other time.

MR CHASKALSON: You testified that there was no substance to that allegation, that is correct?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR CHASKALSON: Do you have any idea as to why Janine would have questioned you?

MR BELLINGAN: She complained about my trips away, coming home late and the fact that at times, there were ladies from the office that accompanied me on trips, etc, etc. I think at one stage, she also found a letter written to me by somebody, who - that was prior to our marriage anyway, and she had confronted me about that, and there was no substance to it at all, Mr Chairman.

I never had an affair at all during the duration of our marriage.

MR CHASKALSON: From all of this, it generally sounds as if the two of you did have a good relationship. You had mentioned a possible other strain, being the fact that her family disapproved of your work?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Did you object to Janine seeing her family?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And would she take her children with her, or your children, with her when she went to visit her family?

MR BELLINGAN: At times, yes, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And you were happy with that and I presume would have encouraged that as that was perfectly healthy, regardless of your feelings to her family?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I would have preferred it if we could have had visits all together as it should have been. If would have preferred it if there was no animosity between us, between the in-laws and myself. It wasn't the reality of the situation.

MR CHASKALSON: And you didn't try and put a hindrance into Janine having a relationship with her in-laws and family, sorry with her family?

MR BELLINGAN: Just repeat that please.

MR CHASKALSON: That was the situation, you accepted that as the situation, and you did not try and stop Janine from visiting her family?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I didn't try and stop her Mr Chairman, but I did object to the interference that was coming from the in-laws.

MR CHASKALSON: Who was responsible for running the household budget, Mr Bellingan? Was that something that one of you took responsibility for or did you share it?

MR BELLINGAN: We shared that Mr Chairman, as I have also noticed by some of the cheques that I got from my personal files on Sunday, many of the cheques are in Janine’s handwriting for payments, although I would have to sign them.

MR CHASKALSON: So I presume that that meant that in a sense, you divided your salaries, and you spent them according to household needs and according to the decisions that you as a couple made, together?

MR BELLINGAN: It more or less just happened, Mr Chairman, it is not something that we sat down and actually did.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay. And as you said, you were equal partners in this?

MR BELLINGAN: I believe that the greater portion of the expenses were covered by myself, in that sense.

MR CHASKALSON: When I say equal parties, I am talking not necessarily in terms of who contributed more, but in terms of the decision making and planning of your future together, in relation to financial matters?

MR BELLINGAN: I didn't always consult Janine on that, no. She didn't always consult me either. She was more or less in charge of the groceries, and I didn't ask any questions about that.

MR CHASKALSON: I am not saying that every time anybody went out to shop, you discussed the fact that you were going to spend X amount for groceries, but I am talking about the fact that it sounds as if the big decisions in your life, together, the two of you shared as one would expect in a good relationship and a good marriage?

MR BELLINGAN: The big decisions I would speak to Janine about, but not always.

MR CHASKALSON: Not always about big decisions?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, not always. Sometimes if I decided or if Janine even objected to something, perhaps I would do it anyway, like the extensions on the home, Janine actually wasn't very keen on me going ahead with it at a certain point in time, and I went ahead with it anyway.

MR CHASKALSON: So you discussed matters on an equal matters and then you did as you pleased?

MR BELLINGAN: No, we didn't really discuss matters on an equal basis, Mr Chairman. We did discuss matters, but not always. At times Janine didn't agree with me.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay, I am just trying to get some clarity here, because it now looks as if we are moving slightly away from a nice ideal sort of marriage with everybody sharing into a different situation.

I don't want to put words into your mouth, but it seems now as if you are saying that we discussed matters with Janine, but if Janine didn't agree with you, you might still make that decision. That leads me to expect that you had a position of power in that relationship. You were making the decisions?

MR BELLINGAN: I did make the decisions, Mr Chairman, yes.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay. So the consultation is great if Janine agrees with you, but if not, too bad?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I would obviously like to keep Janine happy too.

MR CHASKALSON: But that couldn't always be done? And if it couldn't be done, then you would act as you saw fit?

MR BELLINGAN: It couldn't always be done, correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Did you ever deprive Janine of money for basic household expenses?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, quite the contrary. As I have explained, most of those expenses were carried by myself.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay. I seem to recall that at some point, you had testified that you would have been happy to give Janine a divorce, but that you, there wasn't any need to as it were, you didn't object to that, but it never came to light, is that right?

MR BELLINGAN: At the time of my discussion with Mr Mendelow, I was quite happy to get a divorce then. But basically I was basically told not to.

MR CHASKALSON: Was Janine a sociable person? Did she like going out, did she have many friends?

MR BELLINGAN: At first Janine was quite outgoing Mr Chairman, and friendly with a wide variety of people, etc, etc. At times, Janine had interpersonal problems.

MR CHASKALSON: Did you and Janine often go out together?

MR BELLINGAN: When the occasion permitted it and the finances, etc, then we did Mr Chairman, but ...

MR CHASKALSON: Would you say that you socialised more as a couple together or that you went out with your friends and she went out with her friends?

MR BELLINGAN: At times I would go out, for example to play a game of golf and it was recreation, social, and Janine didn't indulge in anything of that nature, so she wouldn't have been part of that.

At times in the marriage when Janine was upset with me, then she may have for example visited her brother or parents or something of that nature, but never going out socially in the evenings or whatever, with some separate circle of friends, Mr Chairman. No, not really.

I wouldn't have allowed that, it wouldn't have been a healthy thing at all.

MR CHASKALSON: You never tried to stop Janine from socialising with her friends during the daytime for instance, when you were at work or anything like that?

MR BELLINGAN: Only in so far as I thought that they may be a problem.

MR CHASKALSON: What do you consider a problem, is that maybe a bad influence or something like that?

MR BELLINGAN: A bad influence Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And then you would say to Janine, Janine please don't see X, the person is a bad influence?

MR BELLINGAN: I think on one or two occasions I said to Janine that I would prefer if they didn't come to the house because ...

MR CHASKALSON: So don't come to the house, but it is fine that they are your friends, you can go and see them at their place if you like?

MR BELLINGAN: Well, more or less. I mean there is no ways I could have stopped Janine from doing that.

MR CHASKALSON: I am not asking you if you could have, I am asking you if you tried to.

MR BELLINGAN: If I tried to stop her?

MR CHASKALSON: Yes?

MR BELLINGAN: Only in the sense of persuasion, not physically.

MR CHASKALSON: Sorry, what persuasion, physically, is that assault or is that talking to her, I don't understand that phrase.

MR BELLINGAN: I am saying I would have persuaded her not to see somebody whom I thought was a bad influence, but I wouldn't have tried physically to stop her.

MR CHASKALSON: You testified previously that while you may have drunk during your marriage, it was a perfectly normal sort of things, and that alcohol was never a problem to you?

MR BELLINGAN: No, it was never a problem to me, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And you would not consider yourself even abusing it or taking a lot of alcohol?

MR BELLINGAN: Well, I think I answered truthfully last time, excessive is more than three beers. It did happen at times.

MR CHASKALSON: Was that a bone of contention between you and Janine?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, but not - I would say not really justified as Janine also used alcohol.

MR CHASKALSON: You wouldn't come home for instance drunk often or on a regular basis?

MR BELLINGAN: No, not drunk Mr Chairman, but if I smelt of alcohol, Janine would complain about it. It would then seem to her that whatever it was that I was doing, was perhaps not work related.

MR CHASKALSON: Did you drink often on work related matters?

MR BELLINGAN: After the matters, Mr Chairman, we often would get together and have a drink, talk about it. Sometimes during meetings with people, there would be alcohol consumed.

MR CHASKALSON: But as you said earlier, it wouldn't really be a case of you going out with your buddies at night and leaving your wife at home, this is normal sort of work related things for the most part, or the occasional golf game or issue like that?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, I never went out in the evenings specifically with some group of friends.

MR CHASKALSON: You said a little earlier that at the beginning Janine was very sociable and then it changed? What do you mean by that? When did it change, why did it change?

MR BELLINGAN: I am just thinking back on it, with regard to the question that you asked me earlier, and as to whether she was friendly and outgoing and mixed with people, that was my impression at the time, before we got married and when we got married, but less so over the years.

MR CHASKALSON: You don't think that was maybe as a result of you?

MR BELLINGAN: It may have been as a result of the marriage to me.

MR CHASKALSON: As a result of you maybe putting pressure on Janine not to have social relations with friends who you deemed to be a bad influence?

MR BELLINGAN: Actually Mr Chairman, I would really have appreciated it if Janine had more good friends.

MR CHASKALSON: But you just didn't approve of the friends that she had chosen for herself?

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

MR CHASKALSON: Well, you did say that you objected to her seeing people who you considered to be a bad influence?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, but I didn't object to her seeing people that I thought would be just normal friends, and we went out together sometimes, with Janine’s friends from her work. I am still friendly with some of those people that were Janine’s friends Mr Chairman.

The fact that Janine did or didn't have problems with them at some point in time, it wasn't as a result of me at all.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, you seem to have held Janine in quite high regard, you testified to the fact that she was brilliant, she was very bright, would you agree with that?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I would Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Would you consider it normal to tap your loving spouse's telephone to see what she was doing?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Why did you do it?

MR BELLINGAN: To try and find out what exactly it was that Janine was up to, who she was speaking to.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, explain something to me. How is it that you are able to draw such a clear distinction between you as a person, and you as a Security Branch employee and by that I am saying, you as a person love your wife, you as a Security Branch member, have grave worries about the security of what your wife is doing to your work, and how that could possibly impact on your country? Surely that put a strain on your relationship?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, but it is very clear most probably to everybody in the room, that it was a way of life, this work, for the Security Branch.

It wasn't just a job, it was a way of life. This thing of switching from the one ...(indistinct) to the other, it was a problem, but I was able to be a cold, calculating Security Branch Officer on the one hand, and on the other hand, be a warm, affectionate person.

MR CHASKALSON: Do you think maybe you sometimes forgot which role you were supposed to be playing in your marriage and was sometimes the cold, calculating Security Force member as opposed to a loving husband?

MR BELLINGAN: I am sure at times, that that did happen Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Would you say that your job was the biggest strain on your relationship?

MR BELLINGAN: Without any doubt.

MR CHASKALSON: Tell us about this job offer of yours, Mr Bellingan? I believe that it was in about 1991, in the middle of 1991, you went out, made some enquiries and were in fact offered a job? You testified to that affect at the last hearing, you testified and I think my dates are right, that in mid-1991, you had gone out, you had found a job, you were actually on leave from the Police at the same time, you were fulfilling that job at the same time as you were on leave from the Police job.

Is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: No, not entirely correct Mr Chairman, I mean as Mr Chaskalson has it, that is not entirely correct.

How it is, in my amnesty application I mentioned job offers from Military Intelligence, National Intelligence. Then during - it was after, when was it, I think in 1989 that in fact I had gone for the interview to the company for the personnel post and been offered the post, 1989 or 1990. It definitely wasn't as late as 1991, no chance of that.

MR CHASKALSON: And where, where was that post offered at, sorry, the actual job, the company?

MR BELLINGAN: Standard Iron Brass and Steel.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay. And presumably a job at a place like that would have been much better than the Military Intelligence or National Intelligence because in a sense, you are now out of the securocrat world and you are now a normal average day citizen?

MR BELLINGAN: That is what Janine had intimated or expressed, that she wanted me to do then, Mr Chairman.

It is specifically because I got married, that I didn't take the post with Military Intelligence which would have meant going into Africa.

MR CHASKALSON: Just bear with me for one moment, Mr Bellingan, I am just having a little look in the record and maybe if you want to, you can turn to page 271 and there you say around the middle of 1991, I tried everything to keep Janine happy.

I agreed to sell our home and buy one which Janine liked, I can also mention in this regard that some time before in discussions with Janine, she had in fact said to me wouldn't it be better if I just left the Security Branch altogether, so in fact I looked in the newspaper, identified a job offer, went for an interview with a company in the East Rand, I presume that is the company that you are referring to now, and in fact, was offered a job. Was that incorrect Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: (Microphone not on)

MR CHASKALSON: This is the record that I am reading, and I am reading to you from page 271 of the record. Basically what I am saying to you is around the middle of 1991, you looked in the newspaper, you identified a job offer, you went for an interview with a company in the East Rand in the personnel field, and in fact, you were offered a job.

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, around the middle of 1991, I had agreed to sell our house. I had accepted an offer on the house, not an offer that I wanted to accept, but in order to make Janine happy.

MR CHASKALSON: Let's leave the offer on the house for the moment, and let's have a look at the job, and let's just say on one issue and clear that up for me please.

MR BELLINGAN: Right. Then I mention here sometime before, it wasn't then, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: This was two years before?

MR BELLINGAN: It was possibly two years before, a year, 18 months, I don't remember exactly Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: You see Mr Bellingan, that is a nice answer and it just doesn't seem to be what you said. You say the middle of 1991, you say sometime, to me those two are linked together and by some time I would guess maybe the early to middle of 1991.

But you certainly link the dates, and what worries me is that it is much nicer for you to have the job offer in 1989 as opposed to the middle of 1991, given the fact that you murdered your late wife in September of 1991.

MR BELLINGAN: At that point, during 1991, Mr Chairman, I had no other job offers, I didn't seek work anywhere else.

That wasn't on my mind. It is good that Mr Chaskalson asked me so that I can just clear up over here what I was thinking as opposed to what Mr Chaskalson was thinking and that is that this keeping of Janine happy, as with all these things Mr Chairman, it is a process. Reconciliation with her, was a process.

Keeping her happy had been building up to the point that in 1991 I was prepared to accept the job offer, which was lower than what I wanted for the house, in order to move to a house that Janine liked. But at the same time, I don't agree that I said here anything about a job offer in 1991.

MR CHASKALSON: Let me put it to you simply Mr Bellingan, I put it to you that this job offer took place in 1991 and not in 1989, and you can simply say that you disagree with that.

MR BELLINGAN: It is just not a fact Mr Chairman, plain and simple.

MR CHASKALSON: That is fine, Mr Bellingan. Let's carry on with the issue of the job offer. Why is it that Janine, a person with a hatred for the Security Branch, would ask you or say to you, hang on Mike, you are working too hard anyway, why don't you just go back into it?

MR BELLINGAN: Sorry why don't I just go back?

MR CHASKALSON: Why don't you just go back to the Security Branch, to the place that I really dislike?

MR BELLINGAN: What happened when I started work, Mr Chairman, with this other company, I had in fact not told anyone at the office that I was going to be leaving, I wanted to see how Janine reacted and I made a point of working long hours and telling her that I would have to be working weekends, etc, etc. and then, once I told her as fait accompli that I have left and accepted this job, she said to me well, you were better off in the Security Branch.

MR CHASKALSON: Why would she do that Mr Bellingan, it is the Security Branch that is the cause in your own words, or the major cause of problems in your marriage, the major bone of contention? You have now got out of that environment, why would she say to you, no, don't worry about it Mike, you are working hard anyway, go back there? It doesn't make sense?

MR BELLINGAN: Janine wasn't always rational Mr Chairman. At times it was a question of dealing with an emotional being as opposed to a rational being with Janine, so I needed to try and see what her reaction would be. She was predictably emotional about it, not rational, and I had made accommodation for that in the fact that I hadn't left the Security Branch.

MR CHASKALSON: In fact, when you testified at the last hearing, you mentioned temperamental as well, and possibly also irresponsible as qualities that you attributed to Janine?

MR BELLINGAN: Temperamental, Mr Chairman, irresponsible only in the sense of the things that I mentioned in my amnesty application.

MR CHASKALSON: So we've got a person that isn't rational, who is sometimes emotional, is irresponsible in respect of Security Branch matters, wouldn't it have been the easiest thing in the world for you to take care of all of your dilemmas about the NUMSA information, or any other information that you say existed, by removing yourself from the Security Branch, by saying thank you, I am going to hand in my badge and I am going to become a civilian?

Janine therefore has no more hold over you? Or not even over you, no more danger to the country, because you have throughout your application said that you are not self-motivated, you are motivated by what you saw as your duty?

MR BELLINGAN: I tried leaving the Security Branch Mr Chairman, it didn't work.

MR CHASKALSON: Why did you listen to Janine? Why didn't you just say I don't care if you don't like this job, you don't like my old job, you are irrational, you aren't going to like any job I do. I am not going to be in the Security Branch and therefore I have got rid of any possible danger that there may have been to the country.

MR BELLINGAN: Obviously what Janine felt, was important to me, Mr Chairman, I had to deal with it on a daily basis.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, you said before that it wasn't important to you. You said before that she is emotional and not rational. In essence you have said to us that you have made the important decisions in Janine’s life, because you could and she couldn't.

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, at all times, Janine’s feelings were important to me, because it impacted upon both our lives. One has to keep one's spouse happy Mr Chairman, you have to deal with it every day of your life.

So her feelings were something that I had to take into account, and I did. It was enormously compromising to me over the years, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And Janine would have wished for you to be in the Security Branch?

MR BELLINGAN: No, in 1991, she very much wished for me not to be in the Security Branch.

MR CHASKALSON: It seems clear that she wished for you not to be in the Security Branch at a stage far earlier to 1991?

MR BELLINGAN: She didn't know what she wanted really, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: It must have been very difficult living with a person who didn't know what they wanted?

MR BELLINGAN: I guess so, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Let me ask you one more time, in 1991, when you know that Janine wants you to leave the Security Branch, why didn't you go out and find a job?

MR BELLINGAN: Why did I?

MR CHASKALSON: Why didn't you? I am for the purposes of this, accepting your version for this particular question, I am accepting your version that your job offer was in 1989. I am asking you, you know she wants you to leave, you have found a job before quite easily, you are an extremely skilled man, you are articulate, you are presentable, why not go out and find yourself a job and why not make your wife happy?

MR BELLINGAN: Commitment, Mr Chairman, commitment to what we were doing, commitment to my work, commitment to the cause.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay, so at some stage the commitment to your cause is more important than the commitment to your wife?

MR BELLINGAN: I am afraid so, Mr Chairman, yes.

MR CHASKALSON: When would you date that, that shift? Would you say it was in 1986 when you were married?

Was Janine always second in your life Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: Was she always?

MR CHASKALSON: Second in your life, work was first, Janine was second?

MR BELLINGAN: I am just thinking about that Mr Chairman, and I think yes, I think that is true. Not always, but there were times when I would rather accommodate her feelings, wrongly so in terms of my work, but my work came first, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, how could you have even contemplated leaving the Security Branch in as you say 1989 as I say 1991? Your work came first, why didn't you divorce Janine?

There was a clash between your wife, there was a clash between your work. You have told us that your work comes first, you have told us that you wouldn't have objected to divorcing Janine, why not say sorry, this isn't working with the best will in the world, you go your way, I will go my way?

MR BELLINGAN: There were times I would have been happy to get a divorce if that were possible, if it were clean, but it just wasn't happening Mr Chairman. Janine didn't really want to get a divorce.

MR CHASKALSON: So you wanted, or you were prepared to get a divorce, you may even have wanted a divorce because you felt something weighing down on you, but your partner never wanted ... (tape ends) ...

MR BELLINGAN: ... except this divorce thing, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Why did you need her consent? Why didn't you do the normal steps and apply for a divorce in the normal course of events?

MR BELLINGAN: Janine had information about the Security Branch Mr Chairman, and I was not in a position where I could just deal with this in a normal manner.

MR CHASKALSON: And this is all the sensitive information that you have talked about and which wasn't found by the Investigating Officer and is quite difficult to corroborate, that is hitlists and all sorts of other things that were potentially going to bring down the democratic peace process?

MR BELLINGAN: Long before that Mr Chairman, Janine had already threatened my Officer when I was at Stratcom, that was Brigadier McIntyre that she would open a can of worms.

That is not about my golf, it is not about anything in my personal life, Mr Chairman, it was about work. She had a type of a hold over me in that sense. If she wanted to get a divorce, I would have at times, gladly accepted that, but then there would be all kinds of convolutions in this Mr Chairman, that just wasn't going anywhere.

MR CHASKALSON: So instead, you killed her?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: You testified to us that you never assaulted Janine, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR CHASKALSON: And when you were asked about a J88 form, an alleged assault, I think it was June 1991, you put it down to an accident of sorts?

MR BELLINGAN: Actually, I made a mistake about that J88 Mr Chairman, what I was talking about to Adv Trengrove was something that had happened before.

MR CHASKALSON: So what happened?

MR BELLINGAN: There was two J88's, as Adv Trengrove rightly pointed out.

MR CHASKALSON: Correct.

MR BELLINGAN: And I don't know the second J88 at all, so what I was talking about, referred to another one, which ...

MR CHASKALSON: Well, let's just stop there for a minute. We will come back, or maybe I can help you a little bit.

Mr Bellingan, you should have a bundle, it is bundle 6, it begins with, it is copies of the extract of Janine’s diaries and if you turned to page 9 of that bundle, I think you will find a J88 which is in September 1988 and deals with injury to wrists and swelling and tenderness on extension. I have a sense that this might be the incident that you were referring to when you spoke to Adv Trengrove, when I think she was holding an IRP5 and you grabbed her wrist to get it back, because you were very angry and she had been toying with you, and by accident you hurt her?

MR BELLINGAN: I think this is it, Mr Chairman, I think Mr Chaskalson is correct.

MR CHASKALSON: We will deal with the 1991 incident slightly later.

That was accident, but Janine went as far as to going to the District Surgeon and filling out the form, presumably because she wasn't always rational?

MR BELLINGAN: No, nothing of that that is being asked me now, is correct Mr Chairman. Let's just deal with that please.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay. Let's deal with this incident.

MR BELLINGAN: Firstly, it was no accident.

MR CHASKALSON: Sorry, it was?

MR BELLINGAN: It was no accident.

MR CHASKALSON: It was no accident?

MR BELLINGAN: No.

MR CHASKALSON: So you set out to hurt Janine?

MR BELLINGAN: Not at all.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay.

MR BELLINGAN: I set out to get the IRP5 form.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, hang on, let's think about this.

MR BELLINGAN: Can I just finish my answer please. My answer is as follows ...

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute, just a minute please. Mr Chaskalson, give the witness an opportunity to complete what he wants to say before you ask the next question.

What is it that you want to explain Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: Thank you Mr Chairman. It was no accident that I held Janine’s wrist to get the IRP5 form. I didn't intend to hurt her, and I don't really think she was hurt, Mr Chairman.

She did bruise easily, she was a hypochondriac, but she hadn't been to the District Surgeon, this is our house Doctor, Doctor Andrew Jameson that she had been to and there was no assault reported Mr Chairman.

The fact that she got a form and filled it in, got the Doctor to fill it in, she must have had her reasons for that, Mr Chairman, but there was no assault. There was no assault that I perpetrated, there was no assault reported. The filling in of this form, Dr Andrew Jameson is a very friendly, nice person, he would have accommodated Janine with all her little complaints and things like that.

If I am not mistaken, I discussed this with Dr Jameson after she told me she had done it, and well, he didn't have anything to say about it, he just took it for what it was, a housewife complaining about some minor thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Chaskalson?

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you Mr Chairman. A J88 form is the first step that one takes in relation to an alleged assault? If you were going to report an assault, you would go out, you would get this form filled in, as you so correctly says by your family Doctor to say I suffered these injuries?

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

MR CHASKALSON: Help me out.

MR BELLINGAN: Right, how it works is that you would go to the police station, you would open a case. The Police would tell you to go to the District Surgeon and get the J88, who would have the J88's and get it filled in over there.

MR CHASKALSON: Or to your own Medical Practitioner?

MR BELLINGAN: Or to your own Medical Practitioner, that is true.

MR CHASKALSON: Fine.

MR BELLINGAN: But the second step is to do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, so that the J88 form is that normally only available from the District Surgeon?

MR BELLINGAN: Not exclusively, the Police also have them Mr Chairman, so one would get it from the Police or from the District Surgeon.

CHAIRPERSON: But you would have to approach some or other authority to obtain the form? It is not a form that you can get from your private Medical Practitioner?

MR BELLINGAN: It is a Department of Justice form, Mr Chairman, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Chaskalson?

MR CHASKALSON: Sorry, I might have missed the end of your last answer, is it possible that Dr Jameson has somewhere in his office, in a little filing cabinet, got five or ten blank J88 forms, in case anybody wishes to, requires him to fill it out on their behalf, isn't it?

MR BELLINGAN: It is possible, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: I mean it is a document that is available to Medical Practitioners generally? There is nowhere for instance on these document that I can see, which says case number or incident report number?

MR BELLINGAN: Obviously that would be written on top of the page in ...

MR CHASKALSON: Or on top of the file ...

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, if I can just interrupt. I have tolerated a lot of occasions that Mr Chaskalson interrupted the witness when giving evidence, and I would just like from your side, just to warn Mr Chaskalson not to do so and give the witness full opportunity of giving a proper and full answer.

MR CHASKALSON: My apologies.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BELLINGAN: The Police would write that case number on the top, Mr Chairman. But there is no place that I can see on this form, but then the whole form is not here, Mr Chairman, this is a photocopy, I think of perhaps the front page of this report, there is a lot more to these things.

There is diagrams and all kinds of things.

ADV GCABASHE: Can I just, Mr Chaskalson, just a minute. I thought the basic question was, is this not the type of document that any General Practitioner would have, and I didn't quite get the answer to that.

Can you just help me with that one answer?

MR BELLINGAN: I can't speak with authority on that Mr Chairman. If I was a Doctor, I think I would rely upon people coming to my offices with such a form if they wanted it filled in, because I wouldn't want to get involved with these type of things, because of the problem of having to give evidence from every person in the street.

But certainly a House Doctor, if somebody did come in with a form, or perhaps even Mr Chaskalson may be right, there may be some Doctors who have some forms laying around, but I don't think it is a normal thing. I don't think as a norm, that is the case, Mr Chairman.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Bellingan, so the short answer to that is you don't know?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't really know Mr Chairman.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

MR BELLINGAN: If Dr Jameson had them or didn't.

ADV GCABASHE: Again, not if Dr Jameson had it, if any General Practitioner would have a form like this. I was trying to be very specific, you don't know?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't know, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, you testified that you thought you had even spoken to Dr Jameson and he had brushed this off as nothing serious?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR CHASKALSON: Do you think Dr Jameson would have any cause to be of the view that Janine was a typically abused woman?

MR BELLINGAN: No, most definitely he would have no cause to believe that, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And there would be no reason for him to think that she should have got out of her marriage earlier?

MR BELLINGAN: He wouldn't have any grounds, on the knowledge that he had, for that Mr Chairman. In other words, based on completing this form over here.

MR CHASKALSON: And what about from possibly conversations with Janine?

MR BELLINGAN: It may be that that may have been his opinion, Mr Chairman. It was certainly never expressed to me by Dr Jameson.

MR CHASKALSON: But you wouldn't agree with any of those contentions either, would you?

MR BELLINGAN: I am not so sure about that, Mr Chairman. I think Janine, in retrospect, should have got out of the marriage.

MR CHASKALSON: Would you consider her to be a typical abused woman?

MR BELLINGAN: No, that is absurd Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, I put two contentions to you and I wanted to give you an opportunity of answering both of them.

Was there any physiological abuse in the marriage, specifically relating to financial matters?

MR BELLINGAN: Sorry on whose side, Mr Chairman?

MR CHASKALSON: Was there any physiological abuse directed by you, to your late wife, specifically relating to financial matters?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't think it is physiological abuse to ask one's wife to start bringing in some income, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Sorry, I missed the end of your answer.

MR BELLINGAN: The only incident that I can think of that might possibly have some relation on Adv Chaskalson's question, is the time when I had said to Janine that we need to start bringing in some more money into the - for the household expenses, etc, and I had said to her over a period of time, Janine, you have to make a serious effort to bring in some income into the household.

But I don't consider that to be any physiological abuse relating to financial matters.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay, and in fact you can go wider than that, because you can say there was no physiological abuse or any abuse- fullstop?

MR BELLINGAN: I never intended to abuse Janine in any way whatsoever, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: That is not the question. The question is whether there was abuse or not?

MR BELLINGAN: That is an objective question, which requires an objective answer, and it is not something that you can say in fairness to my late wife, because she may have subjectively perceived some form of abuse because of my insistence on staying within the bounds of my work activities, Mr Chairman, and always telling her everything with her not understanding things, my late hours. It is something that I discussed at length with the marriage counsellor Mr Chairman, and it is something I couldn't really help, I couldn't do anything about those things.

How she perceived it, might have been different from the objective question and the objective answer to that is that, no, I never abused Janine physically or psychologically.

MR CHASKALSON: And there was nothing you could do about it, except of course leave the Security Branch because that was the cause of your problems, but you couldn't leave the Security Branch because quite frankly, you were married to the Security Branch, and Janine was on the side?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman, but the problem further with that is that as Gen Erasmus said to me, how will it guarantee, this getting a divorce, how will it guarantee Janine’s not speaking out? At the time that he had said to me, just keep her happy. We've got enough problems, enough leaks.

How would this divorce thing have guaranteed that, especially in view of the fact that our terms of marriage, our contract of marriage, didn't allow for these type of exact splitting of the estate, etc, etc. It would have had to have been something that I would have to more or less offer, in terms of a settlement.

There would have been problems with what Janine would have wanted financially and problems with perhaps what she would have got financially. So, knowing Janine’s state of mind, how she behaved, etc, etc, she would have made more threats regarding these things, even if we did go ahead with such negotiations for a divorce.

It just wasn't on, in particular after my discussion with the General.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Chaskalson, may I just intervene for a moment? Let me just get some clarity on this, are you in fact saying Mr Bellingan, that the divorce would have made you financially vulnerable?

MR BELLINGAN: No, quite the opposite, Mr Chairman. I would have been in a very strong position in terms of our marriage contract, for such an eventuality, if there was a dispute as to who must get what.

I wasn't financially vulnerable at all in that sense. Except in the sense of the effort to blackmail, as it were at that time, whereby there was the threats of exposure of certain things, as it was put to my by the attorney that if I don't cough up a specific amount that he mentioned, R30 000, Janine would leak or she had said she would do, X, Y and Z, which pertained to the Security Branch operations.

It is only in that sense that I was in some way financially vulnerable, but even then, I had the confidence of knowing that these things could be covered up, Mr Chairman.

ADV BOSMAN: If I could just put it this way, so what you are in fact saying is that in law, strictly in law, you were not financially vulnerable, but to the leverage she had, it could have created a financial vulnerable position? Is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman, yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, maybe you can look at, have a look at, it is not court page 10, but it is between 9 and page 10 on the bundle, there is a second J88 report. It seems to have by error, not been numbered. Do you have that in your bundle of the bundle, of the diary bundles, bundle 6? Okay, maybe it wasn't put into the bundle, and that is why it wasn't numbered.

This is ...

MR BELLINGAN: It is in Mr Trengove’s bundle somewhere here, so ...

MR CHASKALSON: Okay, thank you. That was the incident that was in June 1991 and I think Adv Trengrove questioned you on it.

It is at page 108 of bundle 5. I will just talk while you are flipping there. This is I think the incident which you had related to us, the story about the IRP5 form, but you now said to us, that you think, that that actually took place in 1988 and this 1991 is something else?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Do you have any idea as to what it was, I mean can you remember this incident or another occasion where Janine had gone to the trouble of filling out this form?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I don't know anything about this form, Mr Chairman, in fact.

MR CHASKALSON: And again, there isn't a case number or anything, but she may well not have reported it to the Police as you had said before, so maybe she wasn't taking it that seriously?

MR BELLINGAN: It wasn't reported to the Police.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, do you have any idea, explanation, as to why you and Janine should have such different views of your relationship?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't follow that Mr Chairman, because we had differences of opinion, we had disagreements, but I am not exactly sure what Mr Chaskalson is referring to.

MR CHASKALSON: Well, what I am basically referring to is on your evidence it seems as if you have got a great relationship, barring the normal ups and downs which are mostly related to your work position. On Janine’s version, it seems as if you have got a terrible relationship, in fact it seems as if you've got an abusive relationship?

MR BELLINGAN: What version is that Mr Chairman?

MR CHASKALSON: Let's have a look. Why don't you have a look at page 1 of bundle 6 and you will see that there is an entry under Monday, 20th of July 1987

"Home to my parents, M warned me not to go. Came back 6pm, he arrived at supper, went out, came home 12am."

I have multiple bruising following Sunday night's attack on me. You never assaulted her?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: You never warned her not to go to her parents?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't remember about that, but the assault, the answer is no.

MR CHASKALSON: Did you on some occasions tell Janine not to visit her parents, and that is why you are uncertain about that answer?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, there was a time when I had said to Janine that she shouldn't be travelling that road by herself, to her parents, who stayed in Three Rivers in Vereeniging, because they were throwing rocks at the cars on the highway.

It may very well have been that that is what I was talking about.

MR CHASKALSON: Because you are after all a very caring husband? Could we look at Tuesday, the 21st?

CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry Mr Chaskalson, just a minute. Mr Bellingan, who is Bruce that is referred to under that entry of Monday the 20th of July 1987?

MR BELLINGAN: Bruce, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: That is what I, perhaps you can correct me. The second last line of that entry, is that Bruce or what name is that, who phoned at 7:45pm?

MR BELLINGAN

"Bruce phoned about 7:45pm"

… yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is that?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall who that was, Mr Chairman, it may have been an agent or somebody like that.

CHAIRPERSON: And told me that M, I suppose it is you, Michael, left work with, what is that name there?

MR BELLINGAN: Jean and someone or Jean ...

CHAIRPERSON: Jean van something?

MR BELLINGAN: It could be Jean van Heerden, a colleague of mine, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he, what was the name of that person, sorry?

MR BELLINGAN: Jean van Heerden, Mr Chairman, he was a Security Branch Officer who worked at Head Office.

I had an agent working in the office, whose name was Bruce, at one stage, when I was at Stratcom Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this the time that you worked at Stratcom?

MR BELLINGAN: This was the time that I worked at Stratcom, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Chaskalson.

MR CHASKALSON: Would you care to read us the entry under Tuesday, the 21st of July 1987, Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: My copy is not so very good, maybe if Mr Chaskalson could just help me please.

MR CHASKALSON: I will help you with pleasure Mr Bellingan, all of the copies are exactly the same.

"But it might be embarrassing. Home 8pm, very sarcastic, I accused him of assault re my bruising, he told me very belligerently go report to Police, very under the influence, fumes while asleep, unbearable."

But you didn't assault her, and you weren't very belligerent when you came home drunk at night?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall coming home drunk, Mr Chairman, but my attitude would have been if there was some type of irrational or emotional allegation at me, that report it to the Police, because there was no assault.

MR CHASKALSON: And aside from the two J88 forms that we have looked at, are you aware of any other occasion when Janine in fact did report you to the Police and possibly even received a case number?

MR BELLINGAN: I am not aware of her reporting anything like that, I wasn't aware, but I heard at the inquest that there was a time that she said in her diaries or whatever, that she had phoned. I am not aware of that as a fact, no.

MR CHASKALSON: And there wouldn't be any reason for her to lay a charge of assault with the Police on you, because you never assaulted her?

MR BELLINGAN: Quite correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Let's have a look at page 2, there is quite a long extract from Friday, the 25th. I presume Mr Bellingan, that your copy is still illegible?

MR BELLINGAN: It is not very good Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: I am going to pick up from three lines from the bottom of the Friday entry.

"Hit me across the face with a dishcloth, hit back, then he "donnered" me, L, R and C, left, right and centre, bashing head on S-machine. Multiple bruising to head, arms and back."

Do recall an incident like that?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, but I do recall seeing this before at the trial and the inquest, and there is no foundation to it whatsoever.

MR CHASKALSON: A figment of Janine’s imagination perhaps?

MR BELLINGAN: Well Mr Chairman, I would definitely know if anybody beat Janine left, right and centre. It was not I and I would know if it was anybody else. What I am saying is that there was no such thing.

MR CHASKALSON: Yes, and it is you that she is referring to?

MR BELLINGAN: (No audible reply)

MR CHASKALSON: But you have answered that question. Let's keep on going, page 3. I don't suppose the copy has cleared up yet, so I will keep on reading for you.

It is an extract under the period Saturday, 17 October 1987, it looks as if it may all have been written on the Friday, because there is an arrow to indicate that, be that as it may.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, if I may just come in at this stage, I may just confirm that my copy is also not very legible, and I think the insinuations are not really appropriate at this stage.

The insinuation that there is particular reason why the applicant wouldn't like to read it himself. I think we can just get on with the matter and if the copies are not legible, they are not legible.

My copy in particular, on the right hand side, is not legible, part of it is cut off.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I assume that Mr Chaskalson will conduct the cross-examination as he is advised. Whether he wants Mr Bellingan to read or not, I leave entirely up to him.

MR CHASKALSON: No, I am not particularly concerned, my copy on the right hand side is also cut off, but that isn't a major issue.

At that extract it picks up, leave me alone, and with the baby in my arms, proceeded to smack my face a few times. Very friendly, you never did that?

MR BELLINGAN: How ridiculous.

MR CHASKALSON: Absolutely, and I cannot understand why anybody would list in a personal diary a litany of such abuses which are according to your version, so ridiculous.

MR BELLINGAN: Perhaps Mr Chaskalson can then explain why this was never reported to Janine’s attorney or to the Police or to the House Doctor for that matter.

MR CHASKALSON: The descriptions contained so far, don't really sound like a loving relationship, do they, Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: I have seen all of this stuff before, Mr Chairman, at the trial and the inquest, and I haven't changed my opinion at all.

MR CHASKALSON: Maybe let me rephrase my question slightly. If I ask you to accept that everything that is written down here, did take place, let's say it was another couple, okay, and I then asked you the question whether the relationship as described sounded like a loving relationship or an abusive relationship, which would be your answer?

MR BELLINGAN: Abusive, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Let's have a look at page 4, that is an extract from the 30th of July 1988

"Told me that if I wouldn't give it to him, I was obviously giving it to somebody else, I said this was defamatory as I am a hard working decent citizen and mother and always alone at home, with Katie."

You never accused Janine of having an affair, Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman. At one stage, I did try and establish from her whether she was leaving work, etc, etc, and in that context, I had later on, I think it was 1991, I don't know what year this is ...

MR CHASKALSON: That is before that, Mr Bellingan.

MR BELLINGAN: 1988, this is July 1988, no, never. I never ever suspected Janine of having an affair.

I can state for a fact that she never did have an affair Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, if you could go to page 7, you will see on page 7 that there is a letter to Dear Lionel, it is of the 30th of September 1988, and I presume that this is probably a letter to Lionel Unterhalter and then, I would like to direct your attention to paragraph 5. I will read it again

"He will not give me housebreaking money, out of the small salary I earn, I am expected to perform a miracle and feed a household …"

I cannot make out the next word, it looks like:

…"car, clothe a child and myself - the impossible."

Janine is clearly feeling a little bit frustrated about not having access to living expenses, but you say that that never happened?

MR BELLINGAN: It is absurd, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay, let's have a look at paragraph 6

"He has refused to allow me to use any electricity, wouldn't let me dry my hair this morning, until I contribute to the electricity."

MR BELLINGAN: This is absurd Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Either absurd or incredibly sad?

MR BELLINGAN: In a certain sense it is sad, in a sense that someone could write this.

MR CHASKALSON: Or in the sense that somebody could act in this manner?

MR BELLINGAN: Well, it is not I who acted in that manner, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: It goes on Mr Bellingan, these extracts that I have taken, are just a small number of a series. Let's have a look at the one on page 10.

Friday, 11 - you won't have a date on yours, I don't think, but it is Friday, 11 August 1989:

"And over there, Michael came home in the early hours, approximately 1:40, door being hammered. I got up, checked that it was him, opened the door then through the security gates out for him to open the door. I immediately returned to bed in Katie's room. He opened the door, threw the keys at me. They hit me on the head. I got out or up to spare the child, and he abused me something terrible. I phoned the Police after he had passed out."

Not really the compassionate man who would sleep in the car so as not to wake his wife?

MR BELLINGAN: Janine would be extremely irate if she was disturbed, if I came home late at night, Mr Chairman. It is so that if I came home in the early hours of the morning, say four, five o'clock, returning from a trip or whatever, I would just say in the car, Mr Chairman, to avoid antagonising Janine.

But I deny that I abused Janine, how she perceived being woken up, etc, etc, and I never threw any, I think it is keys over here, never threw any keys at Janine, ever. There were three bedrooms in the house Mr Chairman. What Janine was doing if she says here going to sleep when I returned, in Kate's room, there was another bed, Steven wasn't born at this stage, she could as well have slept in that if there was a problem.

I don't understand, and I never threw any keys at Janine and I never abused her. But she would be very upset with me if I came home in the early hours of the morning, and woke her up.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, if you turned to page 12, and the pages in between or page 11 and page 12, are actually photocopies of little notes that were stuck on, if you look at the fourth note, the middle line on the right hand side, you will see that this time, Janine actually did go to the trouble of reporting you to the Police, and she in fact received a Sandton case number.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I don't know what this Sandton EP872/89, I don't know what is ...

MR CHASKALSON: Does it look like a case number?

MR BELLINGAN: No, it doesn't.

MR CHASKALSON: Not?

MR BELLINGAN: It would have been OB perhaps, but EP, I don't know.

MR CHASKALSON: What about the 872, the 872nd incident of year 89, isn't that the normal form that case numbers go?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman. There is a month missing.

MR CHASKALSON: And a Constable Watkins, the name of a policeman?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't know any Constable Watkins, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, I am not going to go through the remainder of either the documents attached to this bundle or the entire record of the diaries, but there are further allegations of you having an affair, of you coming home with lipstick and with make-up on your shirt, of you being drunk, of you telling Janine not to visit her parents, and telling her that your children would not be seeing her parents. All of these you will of course deny as being absurd?

MR BELLINGAN: I deny this abusive type of suggestions and that, in here Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: The final thing that I want to put to you is simply this, that what we had just gone through now, are a few extracts of a dreadful litany of abuses. It seems clear to me that your marriage was far from perfect, you drank, abused and assaulted your wife, you spent time with other women, and generally, you made Janine and your children's life a misery.

MR BELLINGAN: That is not true Mr Chairman. In the first place, my children are extremely important to me, and they always have been.

In the second place, I never abused Janine physically. If by holding her wrists, somebody is going to call that abuse, well, then I am guilty of that Mr Chairman. How she experienced this whole thing psychologically, it may be so that she felt a certain amount of dissatisfaction or dissonance or whatever about it, and then how she interpreted it, Mr Chairman, I can't really say with a hundred percent certainty.

But that I ever intended to cause her any physiological abuse, is not true, and I don't really think I did, Mr Chairman. Janine was a difficult person in her interpersonal relationships, and it is not I who has raised this, but I am being forced to say it.

Her first marriage only lasted only two weeks, I think, Mr Chairman. And then, as regards the other suggestions of Mr Chaskalson of women, it is true that I was often with other women, agents, sources, personnel from the office, Mr Chairman. It is not true that I had a relationship with any of them, in fact quite the opposite.

If my colleagues were to be so entirely honest, then they would say that that was my policy around the office. I would not tolerate people in the office, having relationships, especially the married people, that was not going to happen while they worked for me.

And as for the alcohol, well, yes, Mr Chairman, I did take alcohol, excessive in the sense of more than three beers at a time, yes, but then once again, if my colleagues were to be entirely honest, they will say it was mostly with them in any case, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: You had testified previously that, and a bit today as well, but there certainly was an extract in the last hearing, that and I presume it was because Janine was temperamental and sometimes not rational, that by the time of the murder, you felt that you had lost control of Janine?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I couldn't control Janine, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: What do you mean by that, why would you need to control Janine?

MR BELLINGAN: In the sense of her not just doing whatever she emotionally felt like doing, Mr Chairman, which would have a detrimental effect on my work.

MR CHASKALSON: And I presume that we are talking here only about the work, because you wouldn't want to control Janine in a personal manner, would you?

MR BELLINGAN: Only in as much as a husband would want to do that.

MR CHASKALSON: Which in your case and from these papers before us, seems to be more than normal?

MR BELLINGAN: Only from the point of view of the situation that I was in Mr Chairman, that is all.

MR CHASKALSON: What I am talking about is a situation where you will not let your wife use a hairdryer until she contributes to electricity expenses?

MR BELLINGAN: That is unfortunately a laughing matter.

MR CHASKALSON: It is a very sad matter, Mr Bellingan.

MR BELLINGAN: It is, but it is ...

MR CHASKALSON: Why do you think that for three years, at least, Janine has meticulously kept diaries, which list a litany of abuse? Do you think she made those all up or do you think she may have spoken to some form of therapist or counsellor who suggested as is standard practice, that she keep a record of these things?

MR BELLINGAN: It is I who took Janine to a Marriage counsellor Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: I am not asking who took who to the counsellor.

MR BELLINGAN: It is I who paid for that.

MR CHASKALSON: I am not asking who paid for it.

MR BELLINGAN: (No audible reply)

MR CHASKALSON: I am simply asking whether a conversation could have taken place, why did Janine for at least three years, keep detailed diaries, filled with according to your version, lies? Not just any lies, horrible sordid lies?

MR BELLINGAN: If anybody antagonised Janine, Mr Chairman, they would have to take the consequences for that. She would hit out at anybody who at any stage, antagonised her.

I guess, I don't know what her mental state was when she made these notes, I don't know what her purpose was in doing that. I guess she was in her way, in her fantasy world, hitting out at me, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I want to take the tea adjournment in a minute. We will adjourn for 15 minutes and reconvene at half past eleven.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CHASKALSON: (continued) Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Bellingan, I want to change tack a little bit, and I want to speak a little bit around the incidents surrounding the murder.

You testified to us at the last hearing that if I am correct, you were in Pietermaritzburg on the Friday night, you hitched a ride to the airport, which constituted of two separate rides. You got to the airport, at the airport, you went to an airline and you purchased a return ticket, Durban/Johannesburg/Durban and then you said to us - well, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And then you had said to us that your flight from Durban to Johannesburg, I think was at 8pm or somewhere in that vicinity and then your flight back from Johannesburg to Durban, was originally you had spoken about the time of roundabout 6am, first thing in the morning?

MR BELLINGAN: On both occasions I took the first available flight, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Can you put a time to either of those flights?

MR BELLINGAN: I tried previously Mr Chairman, it appears I may have been out as to my estimation of the times.

MR CHASKALSON: Can you put a time as to when you met Judy White, the next morning? Throughout the inquest, that time was nine o'clock and conceivably 9:15?

MR BELLINGAN: Our arrangement was to meet at nine o'clock Mr Chairman. When I arrived there, Judy was already there. I didn't have a watch, it was most likely a bit later than that.

MR CHASKALSON: Why do you say it was most likely a bit later than that?

MR BELLINGAN: It is quite obvious, if the flight had left at eight o'clock, and it takes 50 minutes or so to get to Durban, then it must have been at a time after 9:15, but with enough time to allow us to do a bit of shopping and get back to Judy's house, where her husband says we were back by 10:30, if I am not mistaken, in his statement.

MR CHASKALSON: I would presume that you did meet Judy at roundabout nine, half past nine, because that was the evidence that was given at the inquest amongst other things?

That was the time of your meeting? And that wasn't challenged, and Judy never said no, he was very late, I remember waiting for him for an hour?

MR BELLINGAN: As far as my evidence is concerned, Mr Chairman, I wouldn't like the Committee to place reliance on what I said at the inquest.

MR CHASKALSON: When you left Pietermaritzburg, and you had now decided you are now going to murder your wife, had you decided how you were going to murder her?

MR BELLINGAN: I had thought about it, yes Mr Chairman, at the time that I left Pietermaritzburg. At the time that I was in Pietermaritzburg in fact, I was thinking about that.

MR CHASKALSON: Had you thought about it before you had left for your trip?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And how had you decided you were going to murder her?

MR BELLINGAN: Render Janine unconscious and strangle her, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Render her unconscious and strangle her? And how did you think you would render her unconscious?

MR BELLINGAN: I thought Mr Chairman, of utilising the same object with which I would use to stage the burglary, I knew that we had burglar bars, we had cottage pane burglar bars and I knew that I would need something to stage the burglary, to break the burglar bars, because an adult cannot fit through the cottage pane burglar bars, Mr Chairman.

I thought of using the same thing to knock Janine unconscious Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: When you were contemplating the fact that you were going to murder the woman that you loved, did you want to do it in a painful manner, did you want to do it in the most humane manner possible, if there is such a thing?

MR BELLINGAN: I simply wanted to do it while Janine was unconscious Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Did you for instance think about obtaining a gun to shoot Janine with? Simple, one shot, over quickly? Not messy, painless?

MR BELLINGAN: It is not something that I seriously considered Mr Chairman, because it would immediately point to a military type assassination and secondly, the ballistics and the logistics, where would I get a gun from, etc, it is not something that I seriously considered.

MR CHASKALSON: You must be about the only Security Branch member who couldn't get easy access to untraceable weapons?

MR BELLINGAN: Not at the Security Branch flat, when I was staying at Pietermaritzburg, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: I am talking about before, Mr Bellingan. You have said that you have contemplated murdering her and I am asking you whether you contemplated the manner in which you would murder her.

MR BELLINGAN: In Durban and Pietermaritzburg ...

MR CHASKALSON: Prior to being in Pietermaritzburg, Mr Bellingan, once you have started giving thought to the fact that you are going to need to murder your wife.

MR BELLINGAN: No, the actual tactical side of things, I didn't really thought about Mr Chairman, but the fact that there was this eventuality that it seemed that I had to contemplate that, that is true, but the actual tactical side, I hadn't given any thought to before leaving to go to Natal, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And you certainly wouldn't wanted to have inflicted more violence and pain on Janine than was necessary?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I am certain Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And that is because this was a political assassination and was not a case of a husband involved in an abused relationship, taking the ultimate step and murdering his wife?

MR BELLINGAN: It is obviously like that Mr Chairman, it is not something that I ever felt that I wanted to do to Janine.

MR CHASKALSON: You testified to us that when you first came home, you noticed that the lights were on in the house and that you drove around for a little while?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Was that because you wanted Janine to be asleep when you came into the house?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Why?

MR BELLINGAN: I would never have been able to do this if Janine wasn't asleep Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Because if you had looked at her, feelings of love may have whelmed up and if you had spoken to her, this would have all been there, and it would have been impossible to kill her?

MR BELLINGAN: That is true Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: So even though because of your work, and because of the fact of how important you considered your work, you had to kill her, you didn't want to see her face before you did it, otherwise you were afraid, you wouldn't carry through with your obligations to protect the country?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Something troubles me, Mr Bellingan. You have made the final decision to murder Janine based essentially on two conversations which you testified for the first time, at the last hearing.

The first conversation, was a conversation that you had with your sister, in which she informed you of a conversation that she had had with Janine and that Janine had explained to her that you were going to be leaving the Security Branch and there was all this exposure taking place.

The second conversation is a conversation that you have with Janine in which she says words to the effect of it will all be all right, don't worry, it will all be all right, and you say that told you because you know Janine so well, that she was going to release the vital information, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Something like that, Mr Chairman. The second conversation is not too accurately reflected, but something like that.

MR CHASKALSON: Would you like to just make it accurate and be comfortable with the statement?

MR BELLINGAN: She had said that I mustn't be concerned, because she knows what she is doing.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay. And that of course led you to believe that she was going to hand out this information?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: You see, Mr Bellingan, I would have thought that once you had made this traumatic and difficult decision, it is reasonable to expect you to come back and do what you are going to do, but you would surely have tried one last time, to ascertain that this was indeed what Janine was going to do, to ascertain whether she had in fact done it, or to try and get her to change her mind?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Janine was going to do this, Mr Chairman, and she wasn't going to change her mind. If I tried to do that, I would have antagonised her, if I tried to do what Adv Chaskalson is suggesting, I would have antagonised her. She immediately would have gone and done it.

MR CHASKALSON: But Mr Bellingan, you are in the same room with her, you are about to murder her, what can she possibly do? You have come back home with the intention to murder her, you say to her Janine, don't be crazy, don't do this, let me explain it. She goes no, no, I am doing it, I am going to do it.

She gets up, because she is going to fetch the documents and post them at twelve o'clock. Why don't you just stop her and kill her there? What damage could she have caused at that late stage, that wouldn't already have been done?

MR BELLINGAN: There was no need to interrogate Janine, Mr Chairman, I had made up my mind that she needed to be eliminated, and that is all that I did Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: But Mr Bellingan, you have made up your mind on essentially one line, on a telephone conversation in which you didn't discuss the issue, it is a throw away line, don't worry, everything is going to be all right, I know what I am doing? Why not quiz that properly? Why not get a sense of what was going through Janine’s head?

MR BELLINGAN: It is incorrect what Adv Chaskalson says, it is not one lie. Was it line or lie that you said, I didn't quite hear.

MR CHASKALSON: The point I am trying to make Mr Bellingan, and just for record purposes again, I like my colleague, Mr Wagener am too an attorney, so you need not refer to me as an advocate, the point that I am trying to make is that Janine had made a comment to you, you had interpreted that comment as meaning that she was going to release sensitive information. You make a decision that you need to murder her, and you get on a plane, come back to Johannesburg to do exactly that. Are you happy with me so far?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: At that point, I say to you go into the house, either while she is awake, alternatively wake her up and say listen darling, what is going on here? Why do you want to do this?

MR BELLINGAN: We were way beyond anything like that, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Explain that to me, Mr Bellingan.

MR BELLINGAN: Well, Mr Chairman, if previously I couldn't have gotten that right, then there is no ways I would have been able to get it right then, so it was out of the question completely. It would have ended up in a shouting contest and it would have been counter-productive completely, because Janine already knew that she was doing wrong, so she would have been highly, she would have reacted in an extreme manner if I would have done that, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And you might have been forced to kill her?

MR BELLINGAN: I would have been, most definitely.

MR CHASKALSON: Exactly. That is what I don't understand Mr Bellingan, what can possibly make your situation any worse? You have to kill the woman you love, why not give her a chance, let's even leave the side alone of changing her mind, okay.

Weren't you interested to know where the documents were?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman, I did indeed look for them for some time.

MR CHASKALSON: What I am asking you Mr Bellingan is, why didn't you wake your wife, do whatever you needed to do to her, because after all you are about to kill her, so it is not going to make that much difference, and say to her, where are these documents?

Are they taped under the car, are they in another room, are they at your office? You don't even know if - she may sent these documents already, Mr Bellingan. You know nothing?

MR BELLINGAN: There was, she hadn't sent them.

MR CHASKALSON: How do you know that?

MR BELLINGAN: Firstly, she said the weekend, Friday is not the weekend. Secondly, she obviously needed to get documents at her office.

MR CHASKALSON: Why? How do you know the documents were not with her?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I didn't. I am thinking retrospectively now.

MR CHASKALSON: Don't think retrospectively.

MR BELLINGAN: At the time, she had said the weekend anyway.

MR CHASKALSON: Fine.

MR BELLINGAN: Secondly, she wouldn't have had the opportunity Mr Chairman, because she was at work on Friday. Her opportunity would have been Saturday. She was taking the children to a party on Saturday and she would have had time for herself Saturday morning.

That would have been her opportunity. As I knew Janine, she would also have wanted to think about how she would be putting things, whether she would indeed do that, and that kind of opportunity, that kind of thing she would have done, not while she was at the office.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay. But you have now told us that when you spoke to Janine on Friday night, she had made that decision that she was going to release the information?

MR BELLINGAN: When I spoke to her on Friday morning?

MR CHASKALSON: My apologies, she had made the decision, so she had actually made that decision on Friday morning that she was going to release the documents on the weekend of course?

MR BELLINGAN: That is how I understood it Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And you had also informed her that you would be coming home that night, so she should not put the latch on the door?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: It is nonsensical Mr Bellingan. If she has made the decision and she is hundred percent going to go through with that decision, which is what you are now saying she is, and she now knows you are coming back, why not pop the documents into the post at some stage between the Friday morning conversation when you tell her you are coming back and the period in which you do come back? It doesn't have to be during work hours, it can be in a post box at seven o'clock at night?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, Janine had added this thing to her thinking by then, that it was not just the Security Branch that she was vengeful against, it wasn't a question that she wanted to do some harm to me. It was a question that she wanted me to leave, to extricate myself from the Security Branch.

As I know Janine, she was not going to be happy with me, with this fawning attitude of mine on the telephone of yes, okay, whatever. This non-challenging attitude of mine Mr Chairman, she would have wanted to look at me, and make up her mind.

MR CHASKALSON: Make up her mind about what, Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: About exactly what she was going to do next.

MR CHASKALSON: So then, by your own testimony right now, she was not hundred percent certain when she spoke to you on the phone, because she wanted to speak to you in person and make up her mind?

MR BELLINGAN: I am speculating Mr Chairman, because that is what I was asked to do.

MR CHASKALSON: No Mr Bellingan, what you were asked to do was to explain why you took certain actions which to my mind, are nonsensical and you have given us an answer.

I would like to test that answer.

MR BELLINGAN: What was the question please.

MR CHASKALSON: Let's try again. Maybe let's start off with the specific aspect of your answer which is that Janine would not have released that information until she had had a chance to see me, and speak to me about it?

MR BELLINGAN: That is what I understood Janine may have been thinking Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay, how do you reconcile the fact that she may not release this information until she sees you, to the fact that she is hundred percent certain now that she is going to release that information, and you need to murder her? The two don't fit, Mr Bellingan.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, Janine was going to make the revelations in one form or another. She had my documents, she didn't know I knew that. She didn't know about the telephone tap.

She didn't know that I was fawning, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, I hate to interrupt you and if it is inappropriate, you can carry on, but I have asked a specific question, and I would like you to try and confine your answer to that simple question that I am now putting to you now.

Let's start again at the top, you say that in Durban you are a hundred percent certain that Janine is about to release that information, it is urgent that you get back to Johannesburg and kill her, before she can release that information on the weekend. Are you happy with that?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: You have told me that there would be absolutely no purpose in speaking to Janine, when you got home, because she had made up her mind and that fits with your first answer, are you happy with that?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Now you tell us that Janine would not have already sent the information because she would have wanted to speak to you before she did that? Why?

MR BELLINGAN: That is what I was thinking what she was thinking Mr Chairman, that is why I knew that she wouldn't have sent it.

MR CHASKALSON: Then why didn't you wake her up and say to her, let's talk about this because obviously she wanted to talk about it?

MR BELLINGAN: It was way to late for that, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: It is nonsensical answer Mr Bellingan, we aren't going to get any further, but I put it to you that the testimony that you have now given, is not true.

MR BELLINGAN: It is true, Mr Chairman. It makes perfectly good sense, if Mr Chaskalson was in my shoes, he may have been forced to do the same thing, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: I sincerely doubt it, Mr Bellingan, but that is as an aside.

Okay, so you have now come home, you have gone into the house, your wife is sleeping, you had two children at the time of the murder?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct.

MR CHASKALSON: You still have two children?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct.

MR CHASKALSON: How old were they at the time of the murder?

MR BELLINGAN: Steven was ten months old and Kate was five.

MR CHASKALSON: Do they sleep in the same bedroom or in separate bedrooms?

MR BELLINGAN: Separate bedrooms Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: So there would have been your wife in the main bedroom, and a child in two adjoining, separate bedrooms?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Did you look in on your children and see if they were sleeping or if they were awake?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I did Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And they were sleeping?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR CHASKALSON: Did you think about how, what you were about to do, was going to affect them?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I did Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: It must have been very painful? Did you think about the fact that it would be your children who would find the brutalised body in the morning?

MR BELLINGAN: I thought the maid would find her.

MR CHASKALSON: Did your children find her in the morning?

MR BELLINGAN: Kate did.

MR CHASKALSON: Why ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, does your client possibly want a short while to collect himself?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman, he would like to, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We will stand down for a few minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: (still under oath)

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, just before we proceed, may I just put two matters on record.

The first thing is that I would just like to state that it is almost of no use to allow the applicant time to recollect himself, if the TV crew is allowed to interrupt his collecting himself, and try to film him during the course of that.

I know this is a public place, a public hearing, but it serves absolutely no purpose to let the matter stand down for a while for someone to recollect himself, only to be filmed during the course of doing that.

I don't know to what extent the Committee can assist us in this regard. That was done in fact at close range, I mean they moved up to within a metre of the applicant, to film him while the Committee was in adjournment.

The second thing that I would like to mention, it is an objection, the line of questioning by Mr Chaskalson at this stage, my objection is that such line is not relevant to the applicant and this hearing, and I would ask Mr Chaskalson to provide us with the basis for the relevance of this line of questioning with regard to the applicant's feelings towards his children on that particular night.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We note what you had conveyed to us in regard to the media and we can simply appeal to the media to maintain an attitude of being sensitive when dealing with this.

We haven't had reason to admonish the media up to now, and we trust that they will approach a matter like this, in a humane fashion.

In so far as the objection is concerned, Mr Chaskalson, there is an objection that what you are asking, is not relevant. Do you want to respond?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CHASKALSON: (continued) Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. I would also just on the first issue, there is a room that has been set aside for the applicant, and it may be more appropriate in future if that is always available to him, and he will not be disturbed by any of the media.

As far as the line of re-examination is concerned, Mr Chairman, at this stage, I am of the very simple view that this is not a political murder. This is a murder that has all the hallmarks of an abusive relationship.

I believe that were this a political murder, Mr Bellingan would have taken extraordinary steps to ensure that amongst others, his children would not have suffered any harm or been exposed to any traumatic experiences. It is going to be my submission that Mr Bellingan in effect, lost control.

I will bear that point in mind, and it is not really going to take the issue much further, and I can steer clear of it, if it would be helpful.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that to the extent that the point is relevant, it has been covered. The circumstances surrounding the killing are fairly sort of, well canvassed, so it might very well be that you know, there is no benefit in prolonging that particular aspect of the matter.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Chairman, with your leave, I would like to just briefly touch on the issue of the key.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think Mr Hattingh's point was simply around the situation of the applicant's conduct immediately prior to attacking the deceased, in regard to the children and so on. I think there the ground has been covered.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, you testified that you were of the view that the domestic worker would have found your wife in the morning?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Is that because she had keys to the house and would let herself in in the morning?

MR BELLINGAN: She usually - just to answer the question - she never had keys for the house.

MR CHASKALSON: So how was she going to get into a locked house in the morning, Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: The same way I got out Mr Chairman, through the broken window.

MR CHASKALSON: I think it is more likely that your children would have found her in the morning, and that you are aware of it, but I will move on.

You now proceed into the bedroom, Janine is sleeping. You choose not to wake her and discuss the issues and you render her unconscious?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: How did you render her unconscious?

MR BELLINGAN: Blows to the head, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: How many blows to the head, Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: Initially I thought that one would do, it was too soft, and didn't do Mr Chairman, so then one or two more after that. So altogether that would be two or three blows.

MR CHASKALSON: Possibly four blows, or not?

MR BELLINGAN: No, not four blows.

MR CHASKALSON: Are you aware that you fractured her scull?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I am aware, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And in fact if you had simply left at that stage, Janine would have died as a result of her injuries. I believe that that was testified during the inquest as well?

MR BELLINGAN: It was testified that if she didn't receive medical attention, but the chances are that she would have received medical attention Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: How Mr Bellingan and when?

MR BELLINGAN: Just as soon as Lydia Kubeka had discovered what the situation was, she would have received medical attention, Mr Chairman, which would have been Saturday morning.

MR CHASKALSON: At about what time, seven, eight o'clock?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: So somewhere around seven hours after having her scull crashed in, she would have received medical attention?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't know exactly what time it was that I had rendered her unconscious. There is no possible way I could have been certain Mr Chairman. In fact at no stage did I think that that had killed Janine, Mr Chairman, or would lead to her death. I didn't think so.

MR CHASKALSON: So you decided to strangle her?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I decided to strangle Janine.

MR CHASKALSON: You had said at one stage that you had thought you would probably use your belt to strangle her?

MR BELLINGAN: A belt.

MR CHASKALSON: A belt that you were wearing or a belt that you would have got from the cupboard?

MR BELLINGAN: There were plenty of belts just a few metres away Mr Chairman, that was the belt I was thinking of.

MR CHASKALSON: So you would render her unconscious and then you would get up and get a belt and in a leisurely manner strangle her?

MR BELLINGAN: It is nothing leisurely about it at all Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Well, you didn't for instance, go in with a belt or with a rope or with some object that you would use to strangle her, render her unconscious and immediately strangle her? You thought first step, render her unconscious, second step, okay, I should strangle her, what should I use, where is a belt?

MR BELLINGAN: I knew the belts were there Mr Chairman, the cupboard was in the main bedroom.

MR CHASKALSON: Correct.

MR BELLINGAN: Hers and mine.

MR CHASKALSON: And you would stand up, move away from the bed where you had hit her on the head, walk round, or walk to the cupboard, get a belt and walk back again?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: But instead, you saw a hairdryer cord and you decided to use that?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: It wasn't because you were furious with Janine at the time, and this was the nearest object that you could find, and you just grabbed it and you just throttled her in the heat of the moment?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman. During arguments with Janine, she would make me furious, but I never assaulted her. The suggestion that I would spend all this time and trouble in the heat of an argument where I would come and assault Janine or kill her whilst being furious, is just too ridiculous. It is not even a serious question.

MR CHASKALSON: As are a number of factors in this case.

How did you feel?

MR BELLINGAN: Terrible.

MR CHASKALSON: At the time that you were killing her, you felt terrible?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Could you think clearly?

MR BELLINGAN: Not entirely Mr Chairman, no.

MR CHASKALSON: At the last hearing you testified to us that you only realised the full implications of what you had done, the next day when you came out of operational mode?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: But you were feeling terrible?

MR BELLINGAN: I was feeling terrible.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, have a look at page 2 of bundle 6, there is a little extract there under the Saturday of the 26th and what it says is down to Natal I went, in the hope of reconciliation.

It was very nice, and can only attribute this to the typical Jekyll and Hyde that he is. You don't need to find that Mr Bellingan, sorry, that is what it says.

I want to put it to you that on the night that you murdered your wife, you were angry, you lost control and in a rage you the Mr Hyde, killed your wife, with not a hint of political motivation at all.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, in the sense that I could switch from a personal mode of thinking to an operational mode of thinking with great efficiency, in that sense and that sense only, do I accept this Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde stuff. In so far as anyone is making defamatory remarks abut that, I don't accept that.

I have already laid a charge against the Star newspaper for similar suggestions. Anybody with any knowledge of my application, the Security Branch and myself, will know very well that this was the cause of the conflicts of the past and not attributable to some …(indistinct) personality characteristic or deviation on my behalf.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, I would suggest that this particular Committee would make that determination.

Be that as it may.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I didn't expect my opinion to influence the Committee, Mr Chairman, but it was put to me and it is incorrect.

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you. So you then decide that you need to search for the missing documents, you find some documents, you don't know if that is all that there is, but you find documents, you clean up a little bit, you burn documents, you burn other clothes, you make your way back to Johannesburg International, Jan Smuts at the time, and you return to Durban, correct? Don't worry about the initial sequence, I am really getting to the stage, a set of matters which were testified, take place and then your next step is your return to Durban?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And there you meet up with Judy White at a time which could now be anything between nine and much later and you ultimately proceed to your family, your parents' house where you are going to have a braai. You do shopping and then you head off?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay. Was that the first time that you had seen your parents since you had been in Durban?

MR BELLINGAN: In fact, my parents weren't then there, but the answer would be yes, it would be the first time.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay. So it is on, we are now talking the Saturday, lunch time, I think it was that you were there?

MR BELLINGAN: At Judy White's house? I understand it to be between ten, half past ten, eleven o'clock, before lunch Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay.

MR BELLINGAN: It was before, it was well before lunch.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, you benefited financially from this murder, didn't you?

MR BELLINGAN: I have lost everything Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: I understand that the main beneficiaries of your wife's estate are your children and that that money is in a Trust Fund for your children, that is correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: There was a policy which was taken out on the life of Janine Bellingan, was there not?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And you received the proceeds of that policy?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And that was in a sum of either exactly or about R44 972-00?

MR BELLINGAN: It sounds correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay, so that is almost R45 000 which you have received from this murder. Were there any other assets which for one or other reason, didn't fall into the Trust that you can recall?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Do you recall the fact that Janine had a pension with the Johannesburg Municipal Pension Fund?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Do you recall what those benefits were Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: Not exactly Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Maybe I can refresh your memory and you can see if it ...

MR BELLINGAN: If I can just finish the answer. What I do recall Mr Chairman, is that they in fact pursued me as regards some type of payout.

It took them about a year to get it right to actually trace me in that regard.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, I understand that in terms of the pension, there were two amounts that were to be paid out. The one amount was a monthly amount of approximately R1 100-00, R1 138-00 which was due to you. The other amount was an amount of approximately R682-00 which was due to your two children, does that sound correct?

MR BELLINGAN: It sounds correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And in fact what happened was that instead of receiving the monthly payout, you opted to receive a lump sum payout?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall that Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay. The information that I have is that in respect of the R682-94, you received an amount of approximately R84 000 and you in fact, ordered the Johannesburg Municipal Fund to pay that amount in two cheques to Old Mutual on behalf of your children?

MR BELLINGAN: There was some type of policy like that Mr Chairman, and I do recall taking a representative from Old Mutual to the people dealing with Janine’s estate and in their presence, deciding what to do with this money, which was then to invest with Old Mutual, that is quite correct.

It is still invested with Old Mutual, but there was another amount of money too, which ...

MR CHASKALSON: Can we come to that a bit later Mr Bellingan, I will give you a chance to answer the question, but I would like to try and keep in a chronology and if I do leave it out, please I will give you an option later.

Let's just accept for the moment and I do have documentation if required, but let's accept for the moment that that R6 800-00 gets capitalised to an amount of R84 000.

That R84 000 is invested in two bouts, there is a R50 000 investment and there is a R34 000 investment. Is this sort of ringing a bell?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: The R34 000 investment is an investment into Old Mutual, their Trust account, and I think there was an income account and there was an investor's account, and there would have been one done in the name of each of your children, so there will be an investors' account in the name of Kate Bellingan and an investors' account in the name of Steven Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct.

MR CHASKALSON: And in fact the sum of each of those investments, was R10 000-00?

MR BELLINGAN: It sounds more or less, I don't recall, it sounds more or less right.

MR CHASKALSON: I do have the documentation ... (tape ends) ... then the other side of that is that there are the two investments in the income account, just over R7 000-00 and that is the same story.

Those investments were made on the 25th of September 1992, rather the forms were completed then.

MR BELLINGAN: It sounds right Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: The two cheques that were drawn up, the R50 000 and the R34 000, were cashed on the 28th of September, so I am presuming that you had issued an instruction for the investment as a sensible way to protect the money, and this was indeed done?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Then it seems as if ultimately these two accounts or funds are closed, and they are closed on the 23rd of September 1994, that was just before you went to New Zealand, is that correct Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: What date was that, sorry?

MR CHASKALSON: The 23rd of September 1994?

MR BELLINGAN: That is when I came back from New Zealand.

MR CHASKALSON: That is when you came back from New Zealand?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay, so when you came back, you must have in one or other way, closed the accounts and that money, was in fact deposited into your bank account at the FNB at ...(indistinct) Lake? Do you recall that?

MR BELLINGAN: Actually I remember now, I came back from New Zealand in November, but I had phoned and made arrangements for that to happen prior to me coming back. Yes, I do remember that, yes.

MR CHASKALSON: Hang on, so what we are saying is when it was cashed on the 23rd of September, you were still in South Africa and you were leaving for November and then you came back in November, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct yes. It was paid into my bank account actually while I was in New Zealand, but on my instruction.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay. What did you use that money for Mr Bellingan? The money goes into your account and then it goes out again, what was it used for?

MR BELLINGAN: Bail and things like that, Mr Chairman. I had expected to have to pay, the possibility of that type of thing arising, so it was actually paid to my attorney.

MR CHASKALSON: It was paid to your attorney?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I wrote a cheque for my attorney for - I don't recall for how much.

MR CHASKALSON: Let's see if I can maybe be of ...

MR BELLINGAN: All my other assets Mr Chairman, were in New Zealand, so ...

MR CHASKALSON: Would that have been a cheque for R45 000-00?

MR BELLINGAN: It sounds right.

MR CHASKALSON: Because I can follow the money into your account, and then it goes out again with a cheque of R45 000-00 and unfortunately I haven't been able to get that cheque, so I've got no - that was to be used for your bail?

MR BELLINGAN: Well, anything of that nature.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay, it wasn't to be used for your children, it was to be used for you?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, the R50 000 is an endowment amount, Mr Chairman, for which each year ...

MR CHASKALSON: We will come back to that R50 000.

MR BELLINGAN: Let me just explain, because it is quite ...

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, I promise you I will give you a chance, what I am asking you about is the R45 000 that is paid to your attorney, is used for your benefit, simply, that money can in no way be said to be for the benefit of your children, it is for your bail, it is for your legal expenses?

MR BELLINGAN: It is not correct Mr Chairman, no. It is quite critical to my children then that I be around. It is not that it has nothing to do with my children.

MR CHASKALSON: Let me rephrase it, it was not for the support of your children?

MR BELLINGAN: Well, of course it was.

MR CHASKALSON: No, to paraphrase Adv Trengrove, it was for the skin of Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: Well, it was for those expenses that I have mentioned. If Mr Chaskalson wants to put it that way, then maybe he is entitled to see it that way, but I didn't see it that way myself.

MR CHASKALSON: Did you ever get any of that money back or was all of that money used for legal fees?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, what has happened with regard to the money is that I have a tax obligation with respect to the endowment policy. There is about R8 000 or R9 000 a year income on which I must pay approximately R4 000 tax every year, from my bank account.

So, it is not that the children are loosing anything, it is that morally I feel that it is correct that this is balanced. The fact that that money was used for legal expenses, which is not completely dissociated from the children in the first place, and then morally the fact that I've got this obligation on this endowment policy, of which it is in my name, but it is for the children.

So every year I've got to pay an additional X-amount of tax for that, so it is my way of working it out, that it goes to the children anyway Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay Mr Bellingan, let's have a look at this policy. This is an amount, an annual policy that you took out, it was purchased in 1992, at the same time as the Unit Trusts, it was for the sum of R50 000 and as you so correctly put out, it is paying you out the sum of approximately R8 211-87 per month for a ten year period. Does it sound vaguely correct?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't remember those details Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Correct, but it sounds that it is the same policy that we are talking about.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, it is over a ten year period, so it would still be in the time to be of benefit to the kids when they, for example, starting to go to university and things like that.

MR CHASKALSON: Absolutely. And the R8 000 every year can be used for their incidental expenses and all those sort of things as well. I do not dispute all of that Mr Bellingan.

That policy has in fact been ceded now, hasn't it?

MR BELLINGAN: It was ceded.

MR CHASKALSON: Yes, in March of 1995, it was ceded to Renata Bellingan.

MR BELLINGAN: Right, that is at the time that NUMSA was - had not yet been settled by the South African Police and they were making overtures as to, well, they threatened me and they said either myself or the Commissioner must pay all of this NUMSA money. They were asking for R1,5 million Mr Chairman.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Chaskalson, just for the record, I heard you to say that it was an amount of R8 000 per month for ten years, surely it is R8 000 per year, is it?

MR CHASKALSON: My apologies, yes, it is per annum and it is payable on I think the 1st of October annually. My mistake.

ADV BOSMAN: Just for the record.

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you.

MR BELLINGAN: That is not the R8 000 I was talking about. The tax obligation is something quite different. That is something that is happening now, every year.

MR CHASKALSON: What is the R8 000 that you are talking about?

MR BELLINGAN: The interest from the R50 000 that is invested, there is actually two policies. The one is the R50 000 lump sum, the second one that is related to that, is some type of a future value, which is calculated at about R60 000, in other words, interest onto the R50 000, so there is two policies relating to the same R50 000.

Interest on the R65 000 or R66 000 accrues every year and is regarded as income for my tax purposes, so I have to pay, of that R8 000 a year, which is being capitalised onto the R66 000, there is this additional tax obligation which, my kids can't do that, I have to do that.

MR CHASKALSON: Sorry, Mr Bellingan, I have been lost. We will come back, I need to be taken through that slowly.

I want to maybe change the order slightly, I want to go back to the fact that an amount of R84 000 is paid out as a lump sum capitalisation. That R84 000 gets invested in two ways, the first is into Unit Trusts at Old Mutual, which realise something in the vicinity of R45 000 to R50 000 and that money was paid to your lawyers for legal fees? Are you happy with me on that aspect?

MR BELLINGAN: Actually it was, that doesn't sound right, because whatever the amount was, if it was R80 000 or R70 000 or whatever came from that particular fund, R50 000 went to the one thing and the balance, I think it was R28 000 wasn't it?

MR CHASKALSON: It was R84 000 Mr Bellingan.

MR BELLINGAN: Well, then it is R34 000.

MR CHASKALSON: Correct.

MR BELLINGAN: Then it was R50 000 and R34 000.

MR CHASKALSON: That is exactly what I am saying.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

MR CHASKALSON: Correct, and that R34 000 grew and when R34 000 finished, it was invested at R34 000, it ended up being a sum of approximately R45 000 to R50 000.

MR BELLINGAN: Right, I am with you, yes.

MR CHASKALSON: I can do the sums for you.

MR BELLINGAN: It is correct Mr Chairman, it is correct.

MR CHASKALSON: And that money was released when you were in New Zealand and paid to your lawyer for legal fee purposes?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct.

MR CHASKALSON: Right, that is the R34 000. There is a remaining amount of R50 000?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

MR CHASKALSON: That R50 000 was invested in an annuity which would pay out approximately R8 000 per annum?

MR BELLINGAN: It is an endowment, whatever the payment would be in the future, it can't be determined now.

MR CHASKALSON: No Mr Bellingan, I can tell you. I can tell you that in 1992 you purchased a temporary life annuity, okay, for the amount of R50 000. That amount pays you, annually you get a certain amount in the vicinity of R8 000.

MR BELLINGAN: Okay, I am with Mr Chaskalson now. That is then all put together, based on a present value of the future sum and there is a policy which is an endowment, but this annuity that you are talking about, that is the thing on which the R8 000, then must be the same thing Mr Chairman, on which I get the account every year to be attached for tax purposes, the IRP5.

MR CHASKALSON: How is that R8 000 odd utilised by you?

MR BELLINGAN: It goes into the fund for my children, R66 000 odd thing which is the present value.

MR CHASKALSON: Fund for your children?

MR BELLINGAN: So there is two policies. I don't get that money at all Mr Chairman, all I do is, I pay the tax on it.

MR CHASKALSON: It is not used as the annual payment on a policy which you have taken out on your life?

MR BELLINGAN: It is used as the annual payment on this other policy that I mentioned.

MR CHASKALSON: And who is the beneficiary of that policy?

MR BELLINGAN: My children.

MR CHASKALSON: Wasn't that ceded in March of 1995 to Renata Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: That cession as Mr Chaskalson will know very well, is not a valid cession Mr Chairman, not at all.

MR CHASKALSON: Strangely enough, the company that has taken out this policy, states as follows: Policy 8190560 commenced in October 1992 and was taken out by Mr Bellingan on his own life.

At proposal stage, Kate Bellingan and Steven Bellingan was nominated as beneficiary for proceeds, however, in terms of the policy provisions, this beneficiary appointment is overruled as the policy was ceded in March 1995 to Mrs Renata Bellingan.

The annuity payable under policy 8190561, which is the R50 000 one, is utilised to pay the premiums due in terms of policy 8190560.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, may I just come in at this stage. I am obviously at a disadvantage with regard to my position in this matter, but I believe that at some stage at the beginning of these proceedings, it was undertaken or decided that whenever documents were to be used, adequate pre-warning would be given.

I am not quite sure whether that was the position with regard to Mr Chaskalson, but I believe that was in fact the position with regard to Adv Trengrove. What we have now at this stage is documents are now being presented or shown or the witness is being confronted by such documents, whilst I understood the position to be that there would be a pre-warning, given time to inform us which documents they would be using at the hearing.

I may be, I stand to be corrected in that regard, but what we now have is in fact that the witness is being ambushed by being presented with more and more documents which he hadn't seen or he was not forewarned that it was going to be traversed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It doesn't seem as if there is a real dispute here. It seems as if your client is aware of all these investments, it is just obviously, he is testifying on recollection in so far as the amounts are concerned, and the specifics and the technicalities and so on.

But, I am quite sure Mr Chaskalson hasn't got an objection to ...

MR CHASKALSON: I've got no objection Mr Chairman. I just also wasn't very certain if they would be relevant to proceedings or not, and we seem to be agreeing on things, but I've got no objection to handing over a copy. I've got one at my disposal which I will pass across to the advocate for the moment, we can make further copies for other people at a later stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that should do.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, can we just then have a small break to get ourselves acquainted with this bundle that is being handed to us now?

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Chairman, I am going to be moving off from this subject anyway, and I think the advocate can probably deal with it in re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that should take care of any possible prejudice that there might be. As I say it appears as if these are factual matters which don't really seem to be in dispute. Your client seems to be confirming that there were these investments and so on.

Some are quite understandable, so I don't really foresee a particular difficulty, but if you are done with that Mr Chaskalson, then I suppose you can carry on.

... soon, soon, and then you can have a look at that.

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you Mr Chairman, I do have one last question, but I don't have the answer to it, so the documents aren't going to be of help.

Mr Bellingan, to your recollection, if you accept from me that the monthly pension in respect of the children was R682 and some change, and that was capitalised into a lump sum of R84 000, can you recall what your lump sum payment was? I presume that you too, capitalised your amount? That is the R1 138 which was due to you? Should I repeat the question?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

MR CHASKALSON: From the Johannesburg Municipal Pension Fund, which your late wife was a member of, two amounts were payable, one amount was an amount of R682-94, that was in respect of the children and instead of receiving that amount on a monthly basis, it was given a different value and you received the lump sum payment, R84 000 and we have talked about how that R84 000 was invested, okay?

MR BELLINGAN: Actually my memory is refreshed now Mr Chairman, this capitalisation thing never occurred. There were two things.

One was a policy and then the other thing was a pension due to me, which was I found out about a year later, and then the lady that I finally dealt with over there about that, said that it would fall away as soon as I got remarried, which I think was a question of a month after that that I got remarried and that fell away completely.

The payments to my children have continued in actual fact, so that hasn't been capitalised at all.

MR CHASKALSON: I am a bit confused Mr Bellingan. On page 3 I think, of the bundle that I have handed across, you have written a letter to the Director - Mr Chair, I am in your hands, if I am venturing back into waters that will be better - should we maybe just take the lunch adjournment now?

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't know if that is a particular difficulty. Are you trying to clear up the R84 000 lump sum that seem to have appeared at some stage?

MR CHASKALSON: Yes, that is it. It is my understanding at this stage, that the R600 odd amount turns into R84 000 and then that goes through one chain of events.

Now what I am looking into is what the R1 100 odd, what happens with it? Mr Bellingan is saying that he still receives payment. I want to find out if either that R1 100 is still being received monthly or if there is some error with the R84 000?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he seems to suggest that the amount that was due to him, was terminated upon his remarriage, that seems to be the condition of that payment.

He seems to be saying that that amount fell away and he seems to be saying now that in fact, the amount due to the children, are still being paid. That is what I understand him telling us at this stage. I don't know if you can clarify it, if you can, we've got a few minutes.

MR CHASKALSON: That is where I am also a little bit confused Mr Bellingan, because I think that I know, well an amount of R84 000 was paid from the Johannesburg Pension Fund.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And I understood that to be the amount that would have otherwise been R600 per month?

MR BELLINGAN: As far as I know, there still are payments being paid to the children Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Could that not be the second amount that is referred to by the Municipal Fund, i.e. the R1 138 odd a month?

MR BELLINGAN: It is possible Mr Chairman. I am not too clear about it now. We are in any case four years out of date with these things now.

MR CHASKALSON: That would make sense though, because if I can tell you as a fact that there were two amounts due and owing and I managed to find out R84 000 which relates to one, and you say the other, you are still receiving money, it seems likely that that is the same thing?

MR BELLINGAN: It is possible, I don't know.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bellingan, you are saying that the children are still receiving payments?

MR BELLINGAN: They are still receiving payments, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Where, into what account are they receiving that?

MR BELLINGAN: At the moment into my wife's account, Renata.

CHAIRPERSON: And have you got an idea of the amount, is the amount about R1 000, just over a R1 000?

MR BELLINGAN: It is more than that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Per month I am saying?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, there is some sort of annual increment as well, like all these pension money, it has been growing at 10 or 15 percent per year, I am not quite sure on that.

CHAIRPERSON: But it is in excess of R1 000?

MR BELLINGAN: It is in excess of R1 000.

CHAIRPERSON: Per month?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes? So it could very well be the second amount that Mr Chaskalson was referring to?

MR BELLINGAN: It could be Mr Chairman.

ADV GCABASHE: And is your wife currently taking care of the children?

MR BELLINGAN: She is, Mr Chairman, yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Chaskalson, sorry. Mr Bellingan, did you ever inform the Municipal Fund that there was a Trust established for the children, are they aware of it?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't know what they are aware of Mr Chairman. I dealt with this lady, Mrs Axford and what they are aware of, I don't know. I did deal with Bowans' attorneys too.

ADV BOSMAN: But did you inform whoever dealt with the Municipality or you personally, did you inform the Municipality, the Pension Fund people, that the Trust Fund had been established for your children because this is really moneys that could have been paid into your wife's Trust Account which, the Trust which she had established for the children?

MR BELLINGAN: The Trust Fund was established by Bowans' in terms of Janine’s will.

ADV BOSMAN: Will?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Do you remember whether you informed the Municipality, the Pension Fund, that there was a Trust Fund which the deceased had established for the children, because these moneys are, it would seem to me, moneys that should have gone perhaps into the Trust Fund, or could at least have gone into the Trust Fund?

MR BELLINGAN: I understand. No Bowans' attorneys don't have a clue how to invest that money Mr Chairman. There is an amount of money that they have got, I presume they've still got it, and the lady that I dealt with over there, was of the opinion that the Old Mutual's suggestion was far better. This meeting took place in Bowans' offices in town.

ADV BOSMAN: I don't think that you really understand, what I am really getting at is whether the Municipal Pension Fund Administrator - that there was a Trust Fund which had been established for your children in terms of the deceased's will, or can't you answer that?

MR CHASKALSON: advocate sorry, I may be able to assist a little bit here. I understand that at the time, there actually was debate about this very issue, and that part of the decision that was made at that time, was that these pension moneys, the Trust Fund was set up in terms of the Will and these pension moneys didn't actually fall into assets set up by the Will, so it wouldn't have actually been proper for them to have been paid into that Trust Fund.

They did have a debate about it at the time, and there was a suggestion of capitalising it and placing it straight into the Trust Fund, and then instead this investment was made.

ADV BOSMAN: I think that answers my question. If I understand you correctly, the Municipal Administrators of the Pension Fund, knew about the Trust Fund, that is all I am interested in. They may have had an option, they knew about it from the information at your disposal?

MR CHASKALSON: It seems highly likely, I mean from the information at my disposal all the parties were talking to one another and there wasn't anything necessarily underhand about where the money, or it didn't form part of the actual Trust estate.

ADV BOSMAN: I realise that Mr Chaskalson. I don't want to prolong the issue, but normally a Pension Fund has an option to decide how they want to pay out the funds, whether they want to pay it to the Guardian or whether they want to pay it into a Trust and I just wanted to make sure that they were aware of the factual situation, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the pension proceeds in any case, won't form part of the estate, that seems to be the operation of the law in respect of that, so there doesn't seem to be any sort of ...

MR CHASKALSON: That is how I understand the matter as well, and the legal guardian made a request that those moneys should be invested in a certain way and they were.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Bellingan, are you in agreement with all that has been said?

MR BELLINGAN: I think so Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I wonder if we shouldn't take the luncheon adjournment at this stage. Perhaps you can all look at the papers and we can continue at two o'clock.

We are adjourned.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CHASKALSON: (continued) Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, just for purposes of the record, it was pointed out to me during the lunch break that I may have put something as a fact, when it is not necessarily the case.

In regard to the number on the notepad which I had referred to as a Sandton case docket number, I haven't verified that as a fact and it was simply my understanding, looking at the note, that that was what it was.

CHAIRPERSON: That is noted. Do you want to continue?

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you. Mr Bellingan, I would like to turn now onto an issue that was mentioned right at the start of the first hearing and then disappeared for a while, which is a question of what constitutes your amnesty application.

In the bundle, there are two documents that are down as both being your amnesty application, and you have steadfastly maintained that you have a single application, and that that is the application contained beginning from page 23 of bundle 1, into I think it is 476 odd?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay. When did you first meet your current legal representatives, and by that, let's consider it as Strydom Britz and possibly Adv Du Plessis?

MR BELLINGAN: It would be helpful if I could get a copy of the documentation I gave in February to Mr Chaskalson, because that was the application that I filled in and whereafter I actually met them. It was in, the year was - I have it ...

MR CHASKALSON: Are you talking about Annexure H Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

MR CHASKALSON: That is the application for legal representation?

MR BELLINGAN: 1997, Mr Chairman. The date on the actual form says 1996, that is wrong, it is 1997.

MR CHASKALSON: I see at page 2 it says 1996 and page 3 has actually been crossed out and put in as 1997?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: So on or around May 1997 you were introduced to this firm of attorneys and it was decided that they would represent you in an amnesty application?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Now, at this stage you already had lodged with the Commission maybe let me use the word, the bare bones of an amnesty application and that would be the standard annexure amnesty form, filled in in hand-written notes, and that is dated 8 October 1996 and that is numbered 1 - 7 in bundle 1?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And that document, although referring to an annexure, I think, did not have anything contained in it?

MR BELLINGAN: No, there was the offences for which I was applying for amnesty Mr Chairman, on the front page. I don't remember exactly what, but it was just a skeleton application, in order to meet the deadline. There was a deadline at some point in time, I think it was in December of 1996, and in order to meet that deadline, I had agreed with the TRC to submit that skeleton application.

MR CHASKALSON: And in paragraph 11(b) when you say refer to annexure, there wasn't any annexure attached to this application?

MR BELLINGAN: No. Not according to my knowledge.

MR CHASKALSON: Your main application, the thick one, I am going to call it the second application, and if you can just accept that for the moment, how was that second application drafted?

MR BELLINGAN: On the basis of notes that I gave to the firm of attorneys, Strydom Britz.

MR CHASKALSON: And were those notes in any way similar to the other document you handed in at the last hearing which we have now got down as Annexure I?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, most of the notes that I gave to Strydom Britz, were in fact notes that I had previously given to the TRC and then which they had made of it what they wanted to and then returned to me.

Then of course, the firm of attorneys then made, gave me certain advice as to what to put in terms of what they called background information, etc, etc. Many of the notes in fact, that I did give to the TRC, are in fact included in the background information.

I am sure Mr Kjellberg would be able to confirm that.

MR CHASKALSON: For the moment, I want to deal with the information in respect of I think it is the 24 acts for which you apply for amnesty.

You say you gave notes containing this information to members of the TRC?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes I did.

MR CHASKALSON: When did you do that?

MR BELLINGAN: I am not sure, it was an ongoing process Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Why did you do that?

MR BELLINGAN: As I have previously explained about giving some to get some, and at the same time, because the TRC was going to call me for an investigative hearing and I was certain that they would be asking me to testify under oath in terms of some type of investigative hearing or hearings and then the agreement was that shortly thereafter, they would arrange for me to have an amnesty hearing, immediately after this.

My idea was that should I have to make certain disclosures which would be very unpopular in the Intelligence community at that time, I would immediately thereafter have an amnesty hearing so the risk on my part was far less.

MR CHASKALSON: The way I understand what you are saying with my own knowledge, that may not be correct, is that the TRC was interested in you because of your position in Stratcom amongst other things and the knowledge you had in relation to broad Stratcom operations and the general functioning of the Security Branch within that sort of context. You were somebody who we were speaking to and who could give us valuable information?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And then on the other side, there is almost what the TRC can do for you, I don't mean to put that in a crude term, but you had an amnesty application in which you needed to come before the Commission and apply for certain acts of amnesty?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And the information that the TRC was going to get from you, might impact on your amnesty application, but in a sense, would go far wider than that and might enable the TRC to follow up other leads?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I think that is true.

MR CHASKALSON: At this stage, we have got a seven page standard form amnesty application which is lodged at the TRC to beat the deadline. You are then giving a little to see what you get back.

Are you doing that in respect of a general HRV type hearing that we could use your knowledge for, or are you doing that in respect of incidents which would form part of your amnesty application or is it a case of both?

MR BELLINGAN: There is three things, Mr Chairman. There were investigative hearings too, and that is what I really thought that you people were mostly interested in, was these investigative things, for which you had to be subpoenaed and testify under oath, which would present an enormous amount of difficulty for me.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay. And then were you giving the information for the purposes of those investigative hearings to see what would come back, or were you doing it for the purposes of your future amnesty application, or was it a combination of both?

Can I explain my difficulty to you, I don't want to put you into a wrong thing. I would suggest that you would have given some information to the TRC in relation to the investigative hearing, and I can understand that, to see what you get, to see who you are working with and how, what is going on.

I would find it strange if you were doing that in respect of the amnesty process as well, because then in a sense what you would be doing is you would be giving information which you knew wasn't true and which might impact on you on a later stage, because you are aware of the requirement of full disclosure.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, but full disclosure has nothing to do with that Mr Chairman. Full disclosure is my amnesty application and the hearing thereafter, that is about full disclosure.

MR CHASKALSON: Correct, and the truth?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes obviously.

MR CHASKALSON: Correct. Now what I am trying to find out is on your fishing expedition, when you were handing out information to the TRC, some of which of it is correct, some of which of it, which may not be correct. What context were you doing that in, were you doing that in the context of an investigative enquiry, were you doing it in the context of somehow or other your amnesty application?

MR BELLINGAN: At the end of the day Mr Chairman, the thing that was of the most importance to me, is of course my amnesty application. In my mind then, I couldn't separate these things into neatly packaged compartments, because I didn't really know what was going on, sitting in a Maximum Prison.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, I can understand the fishing expedition in terms of an investigative enquiry, I can't understand it at all, in terms of an amnesty application. This is where I am just asking for your help to clarify. The reason I am saying that is let's take for instance you put down an event for which you have applied for amnesty, theft of NUMSA moneys. You had then given to the TRC a whole lot of information which you knew not to be the truth, that would obviously backfire at you on a later stage, would you agree?

MR BELLINGAN: With an investigative hearing?

MR CHASKALSON: No, with an amnesty hearing.

MR BELLINGAN: With an amnesty hearing?

MR CHASKALSON: Yes?

MR BELLINGAN: Well, I still needed to get the dates and times and things like that.

MR CHASKALSON: Yes, but you wouldn't for instance say I was with John and Paul when in fact you were with nobody, or you were with three different people. You may say can you get me a case docket or something like that, so that I can get these facts?

MR BELLINGAN: The difference being Mr Chairman, that Dr D'Oliveira's team must be factored into this equation too. They were asking me questions too and the NUMSA stuff was pretty much well known by then, it must have been fairly obvious even in court.

MR CHASKALSON: I am not trying to tie you into a specific event and I just pulled that out as an example.

MR BELLINGAN: I also couldn't remember all of the different events, so it would have been useful for me to get information back.

MR CHASKALSON: Correct.

MR BELLINGAN: What kinds of allegations are being made against me even.

MR CHASKALSON: And I accept Mr Bellingan that as you testified that you didn't think you were going to put everything even into your full application, because obviously you would elaborate at the hearing and in fact, certain questions that may be put to you, would refresh your memory and add in more. That I am in agreement with you, and I don't dispute.

Annexure I, hand-written document, that is your handwriting? What is this document?

MR BELLINGAN: It is notes that at one point or other, I have given to the TRC Mr Chairman, in the context of what I had said previously.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay. And Mr Bellingan, to my mind, this document does not look wholly complete, if for only the simple reason that it begins on paragraph 10. I do have an extra copy floating around somewhere, if that will be helpful to you.

MR BELLINGAN: If you could give me my original back, or ...

MR CHASKALSON: You see that document begins on paragraph 10 and ends on paragraph 24 and that was how it was when it was handed in to me. I presume that possibly you lost a couple of pages or there may have been 1 - 9 before then, it seems strange that you would start at number 10?

MR BELLINGAN: There must have been a 1 - 9 as well, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay, and possibly even more than a 1 - 9, possibly even a hand-written page containing other information?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: What sort of information?

MR BELLINGAN: Well, I don't recall at this point in time, I only found this towards the end of the last hearing Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Now, when you finally received a bundle of documents from the TRC, and in that bundle you see something that is - you must have been a little surprised?

MR BELLINGAN: I was very angry with Mr Chaskalson about that.

MR CHASKALSON: And in fact we even had an occasion to discuss that together?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

MR CHASKALSON: Now, did you discuss the fact that, did you discuss with your legal representatives the fact that something crazy was going on here, that the TRC says you have handed in two versions, but you haven't?

MR BELLINGAN: I think the only opportunity I got to discuss that, was I think it was a Friday when Mr Chaskalson came to see me in prison.

MR CHASKALSON: Did you never discuss this matter with your legal representatives?

MR BELLINGAN: They were present.

MR CHASKALSON: They were present?

MR BELLINGAN: They were present.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay, and in fact, if I recall correctly, it was decided that they would go back and they would consider that and they would deal with your problem?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall if that was decided. I don't remember. Perhaps, Mr Chaskalson has notes of the meeting, I don't recall that. I recall being extremely angry.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay.

MR BELLINGAN: And making the position already clear then.

MR CHASKALSON: Do you recall that I spoke to you about a letter that I had addressed to your legal representatives in November, I think I saw you in February or so, in November previously?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I recall that Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And I informed you that one of the things that I had asked in that letter, and I had as yet not received a response to, was the question of the two amnesty applications, and how that would be explained?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I recall that.

MR CHASKALSON: And in fact the actual question that were asked on the letter, and I am afraid, I am not certain which bundle this letter got into, but it was question 1 of the number of questions that I asked on the 26th of November, was how does he, being your client, being yourself, explain the two contradictory applications which had been submitted to the TRC and question 2 was which of the versions is he intending to advance at the hearing.

MR BELLINGAN: It is, to the knowledge that I have, it is a question that must have been put in bad faith knowing very well that there was one application, Mr Chairman. Just give me a chance, remember also that my advocate, Du Plessis, was present at that meeting, and he most certainly, knew nothing about notes that I had been handing to the TRC and not, and to whoever I handed these notes. He didn't know about that, so what ... (tape ends) ...

MR BELLINGAN: ... put on record that he has never seen this before, that is perfectly true. But for my part, it would have been a simple matter for me just to explain it then, if I was there, I wasn't there. I didn't see my legal representatives all the time.

The firm of attorneys, Strydom Britz, the senior person with whom I had been dealing, was on holiday overseas Mr Chairman. And another thing I can just point out, every time I gave something to the TRC, they would type it, make of it what they want and then return the original to me, so that fact that I've got the original, tends to confirm that what I am saying is the truth, despite flaws in my memory.

If this was some type of amnesty application, which it never was intended to be, it is more like a fiction of my mind, then why is it with me? My skeleton application is with you.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, I am not going to answer any questions, but I am going to put a number of questions to you. The fist one that I am going to put to you is the same question that I have just asked you. In fact, I won't do that just yet.

We had a meeting, present at that meeting was myself, yourself, Jan Acker Kjellberg and a member of the firm Strydom Britz, but not the dealing partner dealing with your case, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And in fact at our meeting together, I was requested not to deal with the subject matter of the case, but I was requested to simply keep it to an informal meeting with yourself as an introductory meeting?

MR BELLINGAN: But that of course isn't what happened.

MR CHASKALSON: No, because you raised a question with me as to how I in good faith, could put in an amnesty application which you had never submitted?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And I responded to you by saying two things. The first thing I said to you was that in my view, this is an amnesty application that I found in the file, there were two of them, I put them in. Okay, and the second thing I said to you is that I have addressed a letter to your attorneys, asking them this question and to date I have not received a response? Would you confirm that?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And we decided at that point, that we could only leave the matter there and let the representative from Strydom Britz go back to Strydom Britz and try and clear up this issue or at least get the senior partner or somebody else, to contact you?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall exactly, but I wouldn't doubt Mr Chaskalson's word on that.

MR CHASKALSON: That is fine, nothing really turns on that.

We - you testified to us at the last hearing that you had consulted with your legal representatives in answering my letter of 26 November. In fact if I recall correctly, you had said apart from a use of flowery language or an overstatement on one particular point, you substantially agreed with what was contained in that?

MR BELLINGAN: I remember that Mr Chairman, yes.

MR CHASKALSON: How could you have done that Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: What Mr Chairman, use flowery language or ...

MR CHASKALSON: No, how could you have been happy with their response? Let me carry on and you will see why I have asked the question. In answer to the question how does he explain the two contradictory applications which have been submitted to the TRC, the answer is there are not two applications, there is only one application. It is the second application, the applicant has never seen the first thing or provide an explanation for it. The answer is very quickly, the latter application will be relied upon.

MR BELLINGAN: Who said that, Adv Du Plessis?

MR CHASKALSON: Your legal representatives answering on your instructions which you agreed with, responded to the question by saying simply the latter application will be relied upon and nothing else.

MR BELLINGAN: Well Mr Chairman, I consider myself lucky to be represented by a firm with such a high reputation as Strydom Britz. It doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with each and every word that they say on my behalf. I don't agree with that.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay.

MR BELLINGAN: I don't know how anyone could come to the conclusion that there has been more than one application, it is just stupid.

MR CHASKALSON: Don't you think you should have told the TRC that formally?

MR BELLINGAN: How many times must I tell you Mr Chaskalson?

MR CHASKALSON: No, you mustn't tell me that now, you must tell me that when you were first asked that question and the problem arose. I would have expected you to have alerted us as to your difficulty with that.

MR BELLINGAN: Well, I have referred you to the Bill - sorry, Mr Chairman, I don't agree with Mr Chaskalson. I have been angry about it ever since it has come to my attention.

It is quite clear that there is one application that I have submitted and I don't like this two application theory, because it is highly prejudicial to me. I have referred Mr Chaskalson to the Bill of Rights many, many times, and it is still somehow an issue, I don't understand how.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, I am not certain what the Bill of Rights has to do with this.

MR BELLINGAN: It is very simple Mr Chairman, one can't be the objective Evidence Leader here if you are going to include something so highly prejudicial to somebody at the start, which is mortal to my application right at the start.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay, so it is your version that somehow I am conspiring to act in an improper manner?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't know what Mr Chaskalson's motive is Mr Chairman, but I am not satisfied with it. I don't think I should have had to face all these questions about this so-called second or annexure, or whatever, application. It has never been my intention to submit it as such. If I am told that it is a mistake on behalf of the TRC or there is some type of misunderstanding, that is something completely different, but I have been angry from the time I have met Mr Chaskalson about it. I have made my position very clear in the presence of my legal representative on that particular Friday.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, what I am still trying to find out is why is none of this ever mentioned in any of the correspondence when you are invited to respond to this fact?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, perhaps at this stage I should object. I think the applicant has already made it clear that his attorneys, in which he had great faith doing the proper things, were acting on his behalf, and he trusted them in doing so, the applicant himself has made his position clear from the outset towards Mr Chaskalson.

Now to pursue this matter further, I would suggest this can be left for argument. This witness cannot answer why his attorneys did not write the letter differently. This matter should be left for argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Chaskalson, do you want to respond to this?

MR CHASKALSON: Yes Mr Chairman. There is a slightly different issue here. Number one is when the applicant made his displeasure known, he was invited by myself to get his legal representatives to respond to a question and to set out those responses.

He has agreed to the contentions that had been made and I believe that the applicant has got an obligation to explain to us why he failed to do that, and if he can't, then I would argue that the only reason that this can be done, is because there wasn't an adequate reason and that is why the answer to the question was phrased in such a manner.

MR HATTINGH: Sorry Mr Chairman, if I may just reply.

The applicant has made his position clear. The first moment that he realised that this was the position and he saw Mr Chaskalson, he made his position clear.

The second occasion that the applicant had the opportunity of telling other people about how he feels about this thing, was at this hearing and he made his position clear. The only intervening occurrence was the letter from the attorney Strydom Britz, and now the applicant is asked to respond and explain the contents of that letter, although the applicant has made his position clear.

Now he has to explain the position of his attorneys and that is my opposition, that he cannot be asked to explain the position of his attorneys at this stage, while he has made his position clear, both prior to the letter and thereafter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well Mr Chaskalson it seems as if on the position which is adopted by Mr Bellingan, he has a dispute with his attorneys in regard to this particular issue. Do you want to proceed with it?

MR CHASKALSON: I will move on.

Have you had a chance to look at Annexure I and to compare it with the document, typed document, from page 8 to 13 of bundle 1?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, in February.

MR CHASKALSON: And would you say that the typed document, if not identical to the hand-written document, is near enough identical?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Have you had a chance of comparing the typed document at pages 8 - 13 again, to the body of what I call the second application, and what you call your only application?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I have had the opportunity Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And would you say that the information contained in those two documents, and let's leave out the issues surrounding the murder of your wife, if not identical, it is close to identical and here I will paraphrase it by saying that there are certain changes in wording, but substantially the two documents are very similar in terms of the nature of the acts that you apply for?

MR BELLINGAN: I would tend to agree with Mr Chaskalson, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And in fact, if for instance we looked at paragraph 13 of that document, which relates to the burning of a lawyer's vehicle and schedule 13 of your application on page 304, I think we will find that in this case, the two are near enough identical. Maybe let me read from page 305 Mr Bellingan, and you can look at paragraph 13 on page 10 and when I am finished, you can just let me know how close we were.

I am looking here at 304, it is Bellingan Schedule 13, Burning of Lawyer's vehicle. There is 9(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) and then on 305, there is (iv) which is nature and particulars. The nature and particulars read as follows:

"One evening, during approximately 1985, Warrant Officer Whitecross and I set fire to a left-wing lawyer's vehicle in Yeoville. He had been harassing the Security Branch and rumour had it that his new car was not ensured. We took the view that if he had to spend more time on his personal problems, he would not be in a position to do so much voluntary legal work for the opposition. Warrant Officer Whitecross informed me that Captain Oosthuizen had made the request. We doused the vehicle with petrol and burnt it. I cannot recall the lawyer's name."

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And in fact Mr Bellingan, every single incident for which you apply for amnesty, is either identical or near enough identical in the two versions, aside for the murder. Possibly the NUMSA there is a little bit more detail in the second application.

MR BELLINGAN: That may be so Mr Chairman, it doesn't alter the fact that this has nothing to do with my amnesty application.

MR CHASKALSON: They are just remarkably similar in all regards, except that in the one you are an accomplice to murder and in the other, you are a murderer yourself?

MR BELLINGAN: Bearing in mind that in my skeleton to my amnesty application, I say I am asking for amnesty for murder Mr Chairman, not for being an accessory or an accomplice or anything.

MR CHASKALSON: Correct.

MR BELLINGAN: So how would these documents possibly be reconciled as this being an annexure when the skeleton doesn't mention this offence of an accessory or an accomplice, it mentions the fact of murder?

MR CHASKALSON: That might have been one of the problems that you had to deal with and that was in fact suggested to you by Adv Trengrove.

MR BELLINGAN: That is years afterwards Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Do you recall meeting Jan Acker Kjellberg and other representatives of the TRC from a time period of roundabout August 1996?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And I think that at one of these early meetings you were in fact given a list of issues to discuss and that I think is on page 9, your bundle 4, and that was preliminary discussions?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Do you recall and in fact you have testified this morning I think, that you gave Jan Acker Kjellberg your first application, no annexures, in October of 1996?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Now here Mr Bellingan, I can tell you that we are in agreement with you, that we did receive the document from page 1 to page 7 in that sort of time period and that there was not an annexure attached to it.

MR BELLINGAN: That makes a pleasant change Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Now, I then understand that in roundabout September, the Legal Aid Board appointed an advocate to represent you in your amnesty application, I think it was an advocate Welgemoed?

MR BELLINGAN: If you say September, it might be, I don't remember, there was such an advocate or attorney.

MR CHASKALSON: And then afterwards, there was another I think advocate who was appointed to help you, an advocate Boshoff?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, correct Mr Chairman, yes.

MR CHASKALSON: And in your view you had done nothing else, you did not hand in an amnesty application with any of them, you did not get them to type out anything for you or do anything. They were preparing the case, but nothing was happening?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman, because that was about this, at that point in time, mostly about this investigative thing, was my main concern. That would have been my first priority, my first hurdle.

MR CHASKALSON: More so than your amnesty application?

MR BELLINGAN: No, definitely not Mr Chairman, not for me. For me the priority was to get in an amnesty application.

MR CHASKALSON: Do you recall a meeting with Adv Boshoff and Jan Acker Kjellberg in late November or early December 1996?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I do Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And at that meeting, did you discuss the fact that you wished to have your amnesty hearing held soon?

MR BELLINGAN: That has been my view from the start, Mr Chairman. That specific meeting, when I can recall seeing Kobus Boshoff and I can recall seeing Mr Kjellberg, if they say I saw all three of us together, that is so, and if they say to me that my view would have been to request an amnesty hearing as soon as possible, that would also be so. That is exactly what I was thinking.

MR CHASKALSON: And do you recall having it explained to you that at the present time, at that present time, there was a problem because you hadn't yet supplemented your amnesty application and what you needed to do was hand in a full amnesty application, and at that point, the procedure to set up a hearing, would be put into place?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, there was an agreement that in consultation with an attorney, I would flesh out an amnesty application or an annexure to an amnesty application, in consultation with an attorney and Mr Kjellberg.

The concern then was to get over the hurdle of the investigative hearing, but to somehow schedule it in such a way that I could have an amnesty hearing as soon as possible, after the investigative hearing. That was the agreement.

I also got a letter back from Cape Town saying that they have accepted my skeleton amnesty application without any further questions, presumably because they were happy with this arrangement.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, surely and I don't mind at what stage this is, but surely you were aware of the fact that until such time as you had put down on paper details, sufficient details about the acts for which you wanted to apply for amnesty, no amnesty hearing could be scheduled?

I am not referring to an acknowledgement of receipt of an amnesty application, I am talking to the scheduling of an amnesty hearing.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, but I also needed an attorney for that.

MR CHASKALSON: Correct, and at that stage you in fact had an advocate, you had Adv Boshoff?

MR BELLINGAN: Is he an advocate?

MR CHASKALSON: You either had an advocate or you had an attorney. You had a legal practitioner who was there to assist you for precisely that reason, I would submit. Or at least, partially for that reason.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, but it didn't happen Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay. So let me go back to what I asked you, do you recall any sort of conversation with Mr Kjellberg in which he asked you to flesh out your application, to hand in an annexure to supplement your skeleton, words to that effect, whatever, but to actually give a more detailed version of what you were applying for amnesty for? If you don't remember, it is not important.

MR BELLINGAN: No, I don't recall Mr Chairman, but obviously I would be working on that.

MR CHASKALSON: It seems like a reasonable enough request, on the face of things?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, it does Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, I am going to submit that you indeed did provide such a document and that you provided that document in early December, in the vicinity of December of that year.

You would of course say that that was false?

MR BELLINGAN: Well, it is false and I am sure that you can't be feeling, Mr Chaskalson can't be feeling comfortable about putting that to me, because I have already brought to his attention a transcript of a conversation I had in March with Mr Kjellberg.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, I am incredibly comfortable putting it to you, I have put it to you and you can simply answer the question and produce whatever information you would like to, at whatever stage you would like to.

MR BELLINGAN: It is not the case. If there has been some type of misunderstanding, it has not been on my, I don't think that I have been the fault of it, the cause of it.

MR CHASKALSON: Strangely enough Mr Bellingan, nothing throughout this entire hearing, throughout the marriage with your wife, has ever been your fault?

MR BELLINGAN: Well, that is not my ...

MR CHASKALSON: Will you have a look at Annexure B, Exhibit B? Will you have a look at Exhibit B please.

MR BELLINGAN: What must I look at? What is it?

MR CHASKALSON: It is an investigative - it is a report dated 15 January 1997, it is a report compiled by Mr Kjellberg relating to you Mr Bellingan.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I have seen it, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: You have seen it? Do you have it in front of you Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: I do, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay. This is a document that is written in January 1997.

MR BELLINGAN: I see the date on it, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And Mr Bellingan, if you would turn to page 2 of that document and specifically paragraph, the paragraph under the heading Amnesty Application, we are going to find a little bit of information which will take us a portion of the way to clearing up this misunderstanding.

The first paragraph there says that at a meeting with yourself on the 10th of October, an amnesty application was handed in and this application was sent to Cape Town.

MR BELLINGAN: I see that Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Are you happy with that and I have conceded to you that at that stage there is no insinuation that there were no other documents attached to it?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: The next paragraph deals with the appointment of Adv Welgemoed and Adv Boshoff and that was where I had received those names from when I was questioning you now.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Then Mr Bellingan, if you will go over the page to page 4. There is a little heading there that says

"Concerning Mr Bellingan's Amnesty Application."

The first paragraph there is:

"Mr Bellingan's amnesty application includes a number of acts, however there is one of specific interest, that being the murder of his wife, Janine Bellingan. Contrary to a statement in earlier investigations, he now admits that he was at the scene for the murder."

Okay, now Mr Kjellberg is referring to an amnesty application and he is saying at this stage you have admitted that you were at the scene of the murder. He cannot be referring to pages 1 to 8, because those simply contained a list of incidents, and there is no detail provided in them. He could conceivably be referring to conversations that he had had with you in which you had told him that you were now at the scene of the murder.

MR BELLINGAN: He's sitting next to you Mr Chaskalson. Both of those could be right, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay.

"Then he provides some detail and the detail is interesting because he says furthermore he states that he was approached by a person who informed him that his wife had compiled reports about covert operations. The unknown person also played a tape from a telephone conversation in which Janine stated that she had documents and reports, she would be willing to expose.

The person also told Mr Bellingan this was a problem in view of the political situation in the country. He then suggested that they should stage a burglary to remove the documents. On the night of the murder, Mr Bellingan was fetched in Pietermaritzburg by the same person. The further details could be read in the amnesty application."

So clearly, Mr Kjellberg is of the view that there is a document that exists, that document is an amnesty application and that that document has been sent to Cape Town and that the author can read it.

MR BELLINGAN: I see Mr Chaskalson's point Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Can you explain it in any way?

MR BELLINGAN: I was asked to provide reports to the TRC on operations of the Security Branch and as I have explained before, it could be that I was starting to give information on my amnesty, but structured sort of along the lines of how my amnesty application may look in the future.

That could have happened. I remember giving, I had been reluctant to give Mr Kjellberg details of operational matters and he also didn't pressure me for that too much, not himself. Maybe others in the TRC, but some of the things that I was asked to do for the TRC, I was more comfortable with than others Mr Chairman.

I wasn't comfortable at that stage with discussing operational matters, but it could be that I brought Mr Kjellberg under this impression over here. That is obviously what must have happened.

MR CHASKALSON: So there is no malice any more? We are now talking about a mistake and we are talking about an error that you think you brought the Investigating Officer under?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, I don't for a minute suggest that Mr Kjellberg has done anything in bad faith. But I am not happy with the course of events from the time I met Mr Chaskalson.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay, so we have cleared Mr Kjellberg, we haven't quite cleared myself?

So, maybe I didn't understand the answer properly, but you weren't happy with operational issues, talking about them in detail, so you gave something which clearly purported to be an amnesty application. I mean for instance, if we have a look at paragraph 24 on page 13, it is probable that my memory has failed me and that there are other acts and omissions for which I should apply for amnesty.

Other acts for which I should apply for amnesty, okay.

MR BELLINGAN: It would have been very nice if the Investigation Department could come back to me and told me what other people are saying about me, maybe I would remember other things that I should be applying for amnesty for too, Mr Chairman.

This was at a time well before the submission of my final amnesty application.

MR CHASKALSON: We accept that, and there is no problem with that. In fact, there is no problem with this application. This application is a very nice application, it is very detailed. You give us quite extensive detail as to most things, you also provide us with names of victims on page 14, you provide us with various quotes from documents, on page 16 and you provide us with various people involved in all the acts on page 21.

MR BELLINGAN: Where did I say I did that?

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, if you would have a look at page 14 of the bundle, onwards, you will see various other documents which I will submit to you, were handed in. We have ascertained that Annexure I is incomplete.

Annexure I begins on paragraph 10, we ascertained that it was incomplete. You said it would definitely have 1 - 9 before it, and maybe something else, you couldn't say what it was.

I am telling you that it had 1 - 9 before it, it began on 10, went through to 24 and in its original form, or else there were other documents which also contained information that was then typed out from pages 14 - 22 of the document that is in bundle 1.

MR BELLINGAN: But it has got nothing to do with my amnesty application, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: But Mr Bellingan, we are not getting very far at the moment. We have a document in front of us which looks like an amnesty application in all respects. You say it has nothing to do with your amnesty application?

MR BELLINGAN: I know it has nothing to do with my amnesty application.

MR CHASKALSON: If you look at the nature and particulars contained from page 8, paragraph 1 to page 13, paragraph 24, you have already conceded to us that with the exception of the murder and possibly the NUMSA matter, those are substantially the same as what is in your final amnesty application? The nature and the facts?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR CHASKALSON: And we went through an example of that? Mr Bellingan, if you like, I can do the exact same exercise with you with the other documents that are below.

If you look at the nature of the victims, the victims tie in to the 1 - 24, and are essentially identical to what is said later. The people involved tie in again, with 1 - 24 and are identical to the second application.

In fact, if you look at the middle of the application, where you quote extensively from documents, you quote extensively from the exact same documents in the second application. How did this happen?

MR BELLINGAN: It would have been very nice if I could get back some confirmation from the TRC Investigative Unit, some more information about that.

MR CHASKALSON: About what Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: About the actions, the operations we were involved with and whether I am correctly applying for amnesty, whether I should, how I should fill my form in, etc, etc.

MR CHASKALSON: That is not the question that was asked Mr Bellingan.

MR BELLINGAN: But it is very simple Mr Chairman. This document was part of the process ...

MR CHASKALSON: Which document are you referring to?

MR BELLINGAN: Part of the process which would ultimately lead to me in consultation with an attorney, and Mr Kjellberg, filling in an amnesty application.

I would have liked Mr Kjellberg to bring me back some details, what are other people saying about me? Am I in any danger? What is happening?

Some information I got back from Mr Kjellberg, for example the fact that I was indeed in danger. But the fact remains that this was never intended by me, to be part of an amnesty application, and it quite clearly wasn't.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, I am not asking you this question and I have heard your feelings before that, and that is your view and you may stay with that view.

What I am asking you is, how is it that a document comes into the possession of the TRC which is for practical purposes, near enough identical to the document which is handed in at a later stage, drawn up by your attorneys and which you say is your only application? How does that happen?

MR BELLINGAN: I can understand that Mr Chaskalson is saying that I am somehow responsible for bringing Mr Kjellberg under this wrong impression and that I am somehow responsible for him submitting this as an annexure or whatever, but I think Mr Chaskalson must have known a long time ago when I first told him for example, that it is not Mr Chairman, and it quite clearly isn't part of my amnesty application.

MR CHASKALSON: Why? Why is it quite clearly not your application? Is there, look at paragraph 1 of that document, of the nature and particulars. Do you agree with the content of that paragraph?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, it is not signed by me, it is not dated by me, it hasn't been attached to any annexure, to any amnesty application by myself. This wasn't completed in co-operation with any attorney, wasn't completed in co-operation with Mr Kjellberg. It must be abundantly clear to Mr Chaskalson now that this has got nothing to do with my final application.

It may have been part of the process of what was going on in my mind of how I should approach it, being in a Maximum Security Prison. In that sense, perhaps I am in a small way, minuscule way responsible for the confusion. But only in a very small way Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, will you please look at page 8, Operation at Wits. You will see you are speaking about ...(indistinct) the wars at Wits University and you set things out.

If you like, I can take you to Schedule 1, page 101 and show you the exact same thing again. Why is it that the only paragraph that is substantially different, is the murder? Isn't that strange? What disinformation did you have to send out at that stage that required you to lie about the murder because obviously this first application must be a lie, or otherwise everything that you have said in this hearing, is a lie?

MR BELLINGAN: It may appear strange to Mr Chaskalson, but that is the way that I did it Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Explain it.

MR BELLINGAN: I don't mind explaining it.

MR CHASKALSON: Please do.

MR BELLINGAN: At the time, I didn't have information, I didn't know much about the process, but it was evident to me and it would be to anyone in my shoes, that there was a lot of risk and a lot of problems involved.

I had received messages already at the time that I should be aware that although I may be out of the public eye and in the prison, etc, etc, that my family was still out of prison.

There were problems for example pertaining to the first attorney appointed, Mr Welgemoed, who had some threats, Mr Kjellberg also brought that to my attention, and these attorneys just seem to be disappearing with threats, etc, etc.

This question of my dealing with the TRC, as I have explained it, I needed to be certain who I could trust, who I was dealing with. It is not a simple matter Mr Chairman, it is a very complicated and delicate and sensitive matter.

From the position that I was in, all that I could do was utilise knowledge as a source of power, to further the thing which I really needed to do, was to get my amnesty application finalised, and get it in and get the hearing over with as quick as possible, and at the same time, get information, get dates, get times, get responses from other people, get information on who else.

The things that Mr Chaskalson is talking about, are not really gross violations of human rights. I would have expected people that were with me, to quite willingly apply for amnesty for those things Mr Chairman. The fact that they were under the impression that they maybe not have to apply for amnesty or the fact that they are also not in prison and forced to apply for amnesty for example, all of these things impacted upon the situation.

It shouldn't be surprising to Mr Chaskalson that a gross violation of human rights, I deal with in a more careful manner than I do for example burning a lawyer's vehicle or something of that nature.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Bellingan, if I might just interrupt, you do agree, don't you, that the only difference between what Mr Chaskalson is calling the first application, pages 8 - 22, and the Schedules of the second application, what you say is your actual application, the only difference relates to the facts surrounding the murder, who indeed was there when the murder was committed? You do agree with that, that is the only difference really, material difference in the two documents?

MR BELLINGAN: Actually I don't agree Mr Chairman, but there is a substantial similarity, but I don't agree. I think my final amnesty application is quite different.

In any case, in terms of what I had in mind, in my mind it is thoroughly different. The fact that I didn't have to really do any work on the things which are not gross violations of human rights, doesn't mean that I didn't have to do a substantial amount of work, on the very important matter for which I was incarcerated and which I had to deal with in a different manner altogether.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Bellingan, please don't misunderstand me, I am simply talking about what is reflected in the bundles we have before us. What is in page 8 - 22 is materially similar to what Strydom Britz submitted as your application? I am simply talking about what is before us, and you have read those documents?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: Now, you do agree with that or don't you agree with that?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I think it is a fair assumption to make, I do agree, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, I don't think you answered the question so maybe I should phrase it in a different manner.

I understand you now as saying that for issues that were not gross human rights' violations, you in some or other way, didn't need to be as careful as those issues which were gross human rights' violations, and in this particular amnesty application, we are talking about one specific murder, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay. I would agree with you about that, except the manner in which I would have approached this, would have been vastly different to yours, because I would not have lied about the incident.

Why do you send out a version which is a lie to anyone, to any TRC Investigator? What information did you need to obtain?

MR BELLINGAN: Because I felt that it was necessary Mr Chairman, to do it that way.

MR CHASKALSON: Can you explain why it was necessary, what changes your situation by saying you are an accessory, you went to stage a burglary and that your two accomplices killed your wife, you discovered it later, as opposed to saying I did it all by myself?

MR BELLINGAN: The difference is Mr Chairman, that for the purposes of my amnesty application, I have had to tell the truth. That is the difference.

MR CHASKALSON: And for the purposes of co-operating with the Commission, you could lie?

MR BELLINGAN: I was under no obligation to tell the truth, I was not subpoenaed to an Investigative hearing, that would have been different. I would have shot myself in both feet and exacerbated the problem of the fact that I have committed moral suicide anyway because of my work, Mr Chairman, so it would have been different if there was an investigative hearing.

The fact that I was selective in what I told ...

MR CHASKALSON: You lied to the TRC?

MR BELLINGAN: The fact that I didn't tell the full truth, that is neither here not there.

MR CHASKALSON: Let's be clear about it, you lied? If we are to believe you today, you lied?

MR BELLINGAN: I did.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay. Now again, this is something that Adv Trengrove discussed with you, the mere fact that you are not under a Section 29 subpoena and obliged to tell the truth, does not mean that you are obliged to lie either, Mr Bellingan? Why is it that you felt the need to lie to the TRC about one incident?

MR BELLINGAN: Because of the risk and because of the dangers.

MR CHASKALSON: What risk?

MR BELLINGAN: Because of what objectives I had, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: What was the risk?

MR BELLINGAN: The risk was to myself and to my family. The risk was to ...(indistinct) and upset people, the risk was that I would not get sufficient information. The risk was that I would loose control of the situation if I just handed my thoughts on the matter in terms of an amnesty application, to Mr Kjellberg right up, without the opportunity to get feedback from people, without the opportunity, I had to make a process out of it, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, there is a problem with this feedback. I understand your position, but you are also an applicant. An applicant before the TRC has an onus on making a full disclosure of all the facts for which they would like to apply for amnesty.

It is not up to anybody else to tell you what to apply for amnesty for. It is for you to make an election Mr Bellingan, to the best of your recollection as to what you do, and I understand the situation of jogging your memory, and I understand the situation of times ago, but it is not to find out what other people know about you, so that you can then apply for amnesty.

What I want to know is what prejudice would you have suffered if, in this document from page 8, the natures and particulars, if at paragraph 22, you had simply said I murdered my late wife, Janine Bellingan and you kept much of what else is in there, the same, because it is interesting, for instance you talk about opening a can of worms.

You do talk about a tape recording, it is just that somebody else has not given you the tape recording, and it is not your own tape recording. There is also a discussion about Gen Erasmus, and the facts of managing a problem. The content is very, very similar. What prejudice do you suffer by telling the truth?

MR BELLINGAN: The problem Mr Chairman, with Mr Chaskalson ... (tape ends) ... question in his long discussion over there, he is implying that this is an amnesty application. It isn't an amnesty application Mr Chairman, that is the major difference.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, for the purposes of this questioning and for ease of how we are going, I am going to call it an amnesty application, you are going to answer to it, we understand that you do not accept it as such. Nobody is going to hold that against you at a later stage.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I am quite tired of it being referred to as an amnesty application.

MR CHASKALSON: What would you like me to refer it to as?

MR BELLINGAN: It is some type of fictional academic discussion that we are having now.

MR CHASKALSON: What would you like me to refer to it as Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: I would like it taken out of this matter altogether, I am tired of answering questions on it.

MR CHASKALSON: Well, I can understand why you are tired of answering questions on it, because it is quite difficult and it is quite embarrassing, but that is neither here nor there.

How would you like me to refer to the documents that appear from page 8 - 22 bearing in mind that I am still of the view, that this constitutes an amnesty application?

MR BELLINGAN: It is impossible Mr Chairman, for Mr Chaskalson at this stage of the proceedings, to still believe this is an amnesty application. It is impossible.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, you can simply answer the questions. I am going to continue questioning you on this, I am quite happy to change my terminology if it offends you and I am simply asking you if you would tell me what I should refer to these documents as. Shall we call them the other documents?

MR BELLINGAN: Let's call it a discussion document.

MR CHASKALSON: A discussion document? Okay. What possible purpose would be served by placing in the discussion document, a lie about the murder of your wife?

MR BELLINGAN: Because it would have defeated what I had in mind at the time, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Why?

MR BELLINGAN: Whether it is right or whether it is wrong.

MR CHASKALSON: Why would it have defeated what you had in mind at the time?

MR BELLINGAN: Because of all the reasons I have explained in February Mr Chairman. Because of all the reasons I have explained today, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: It is a nonsensical answer you are providing Mr Bellingan.

MR BELLINGAN: But it is the way I see it, Mr Chairman. It is the way that it happened, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: I am afraid that I do not believe that, Mr Bellingan.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Bellingan, sorry Mr Chaskalson, can I just intervene here, can I put it to you in another way. Did you think that this document would somehow disappear off the face of the earth, didn't you think that it would have any further implications?

MR BELLINGAN: Actually Mr Chairman, I forgot about this document. Not all of the documents that I gave to the TRC or to whoever I gave it to, have emerged over here, not at all.

So, if it was not part of my amnesty application, then why should I worry about it?

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, I have maybe got an explanation for you. I think I have got an idea which may make sense. The annexure to the application, was lost for a while and you thought great, they don't have it any more.

MR BELLINGAN: Is Mr Chaskalson saying my amnesty application was lost?

MR CHASKALSON: No Mr Bellingan, what I am saying to you is, do you recall receiving a letter say some time in August, you've got that letter in front of you, I think somewhere over there, there is correspondence between the Truth Commission and your attorneys, in which they request the annexure to your amnesty application.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, I see the letter, it is dated the 1st of August 1997 and it says I enclose a copy of your client's amnesty application, which must be the skeleton. It then says that you will see that in paragraph 11(b) your client refers to annexure, this annexure did not accompany the application. Moreover your client will have to specify greater particularity precisely when and where the various offences referred to in paragraph 9(a), took place.

And then not surprisingly after consultation with the attorneys and whoever I consulted with then, I submitted a document which unsurprisingly is marked annexure, unsurprisingly it is very professionally done, and very nicely done, and it reaches the TRC. How much more clear it can be than that, I don't know Mr Chairman?

MR CHASKALSON: Well, for a start, all that the document that you handed in the second time, is a typed version of the standard form, which you handed in the first time.

MR BELLINGAN: That is marked annexure?

MR CHASKALSON: Yes, and so it is a standard form.

MR BELLINGAN: But whose error is that, not my error Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: It is nobody's error Mr Bellingan, but have a look at page 1, and you will also see something marked annexure.

MR BELLINGAN: Excuse me?

MR CHASKALSON: If you have a look at page 1 on bundle 1, you will also see something marked annexure.

MR BELLINGAN: But by who, not by me?

MR CHASKALSON: It is on the document Mr Bellingan, that is what the document looks like.

MR BELLINGAN: But Mr Chairman, this is intended to be my annexure to my amnesty application. I don't understand what kind of game is being played.

MR CHASKALSON: We are not Mr Bellingan, we are talking about the composition of a form. Listen to the questions, listen to them carefully.

MR BELLINGAN: This letter from the TRC supports exactly what I am saying, from the TRC to my attorneys.

MR CHASKALSON: No Mr Chairman, what it says ...

MR BELLINGAN: I have never seen it before, but it happens to support what I am saying, strangely enough.

MR CHASKALSON: Indeed. When I was preparing your matter Mr Bellingan, when I was preparing your matter Mr Bellingan, I too found one amnesty application, the big one, this one.

Then I happened to have a discussion with the Investigating Officer and he said to me do you know there are two contradictory amnesty applications and I said no, I do not. Let me have a look, and that is when I found the first application, Mr Bellingan.

MR BELLINGAN: Do you mean my skeleton application?

MR CHASKALSON: No, I mean a skeleton application plus the discussion document.

MR BELLINGAN: May I see that please?

MR CHASKALSON: Sorry Mr Bellingan? You've got it in front of you, page 8 - 22, discussion document was your term that you were happy with.

MR BELLINGAN: Oh, the typed document that I hadn't seen before?

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, it has been in your bundle since they were handed out. The typed document that is on the face of it, identical from paragraphs 10 - 24 to Annexure I which is your hand-written document. Mystery? How did this document get ...

MR BELLINGAN: How Mr Chaskalson could possibly in good faith have reached the conclusion that that was an amnesty application, when none of the criteria for an amnesty application, are satisfied with it, and the facts ...

MR CHASKALSON: This is where you are wrong Mr Bellingan, because all of the criteria are satisfied. And if not in every respect, in no worse a sense an application, than thousands of other applications that we receive, and for the same matter Mr Bellingan, the Investigating Officer, who is the person who you had the most contact with at the TRC, was of the view that this was your amnesty application.

MR BELLINGAN: That is not possible Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaskalson, just to assist us. Exhibit I the hand-written note of the applicant, the hand-written note of the applicant, where does it come from?

MR CHASKALSON: The applicant handed it in at the close of the last proceedings, and to the best of my recollection and what we discussed earlier, it is a document that he still had in his possession and which he found while he was going through his possessions and then brought it to your attention.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it a kind of an attempt to write down details of the incidents that form the subject matter of his application for amnesty?

MR CHASKALSON: I would submit that the order was actually the other way around and that first of all, what was written down, was the hand-written note of all the incidents and then obviously, we are missing at least the first page and possibly other pages, at the end. And then from there, that hand-written note was somehow typed up and submitted to the Commission.

But I can only speculate on that, all that I can say on that is that the documentation in the file at the Commission, contained a type written document which to my mind, is perfectly obviously an amnesty application and not a discussion document.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, I will ask the applicant himself. Mr Bellingan, this hand-written note of yours that starts at paragraph 10, where does that come from?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, during February I actually found this amongst my things in my cell, I've got piles and piles of documentation over there. Amongst the documentation which I had received back from the TRC, my hand-written notes that is, was this over there, Mr Chairman.

I thought to myself but obviously if I've got the original with me, then obviously it couldn't have been forwarded to Cape Town.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now what is that? What is that document?

MR BELLINGAN: This is the discussion document that I have been referring to Mr Chairman, some operational details and so on, which would in the run up to my completing an amnesty application, this I may have given to Mr Kjellberg or someone else in the TRC, most likely I did as it turns out.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that where you lied about the incident concerning the murder of the deceased?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that information that you volunteered to the TRC?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, no, not officially to the TRC. In discussions with Mr Kjellberg, I must have given this to him. It is not official, it is kind of unofficial discussion with Mr Kjellberg, not intended to be official contact with the TRC in the sense of me dealing with the TRC as a body. I was dealing with Mr Kjellberg then.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but it is a document that you had prepared, you had written all those things down there?

MR BELLINGAN: I did Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You are the author of the document?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And you then gave that document voluntarily to the TRC at a stage when the TRC was not aware of the existence of that document?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, in the context and circumstances that I have.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is information that you volunteered?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And it contains, is the only lie that is contained in that document, in respect of the murder of the deceased?

MR BELLINGAN: It may well be, Mr Chairman, I can't actually remember exactly, but that was the gross human rights' violation which was important to me, in terms of amnesty application at a later stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Would it be fair to say that the TRC wouldn't have been interested in the question around the murder of your wife, if it was not that you had disclosed that in your skeleton application for amnesty, originally?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't remember at what stage this was, before, yes, this was before that Mr Chairman, but the TRC, yes, you are right Mr Chairman, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You first raised all these questions, presumably in that skeleton application and which was submitted to the TRC, which then I assume showed an interest in these incidents and they started to approach you?

MR BELLINGAN: There had been some discussions over a period of time, Mr Chairman. The skeleton, the submission of the skeleton application and the operational matters, I was discussing with the TRC, the questions they were asking me, was not linked in any official manner with my contact with the TRC. It wasn't that I had in mind that this would somehow be guiding the TRC in terms of my amnesty application, but it is so that I wanted feedback from Mr Kjellberg before I had to sit with an attorney and before I had to sit with him, and flesh it out.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you think it was necessary to volunteer something that is untruthful to the TRC, in regard to the murder?

MR BELLINGAN: Because Mr Chairman, I thought that my, the people associated with me, would take it the wrong way if I would say something at that stage, which implicated them in any manner.

Because of the context of the threats that I was getting at the time, I felt that I should be ...

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you regard it necessary to volunteer any information at all around the circumstances of the murder?

MR BELLINGAN: To get information back Mr Chairman, from the TRC, I needed to get information back.

CHAIRPERSON: On the murder, or what?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman. And also to keep my colleagues, let's say happy that Mike is all right, he is not saying anything controversial about us, etc, etc.

There were a number of factors at the time, Mr Chairman. I don't recall all of them right now. This document here was never intended by me to be an amnesty application, or to have anything to do with my amnesty application, other than the build up to submitting an amnesty application. That is all, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, no, I accept that, I know that that is your position, I am just trying to understand why you thought it necessary to lie about the incident, why you thought it necessary to give details at all. Why you regarded it necessary to embroider on your skeleton application?

Didn't you think it might prejudice you if you were to convey a lie about this incident at that stage, instead of just remaining quiet?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, if I can remember correctly, this document pre-dates my skeleton application. It doesn't post-date it.

CHAIRPERSON: I see, so that is the first of the series of documents?

MR BELLINGAN: There may have been other documentation, I don't remember the exact order Mr Chairman, there was quite a number of documentation I did give to Mr Kjellberg and to other people, the TRC, there was a number of documents, some written by me, and some typed, not typed by me, obviously.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BELLINGAN: So at the time, I thought it was necessary to deal with it like this, with the TRC Mr Chairman, I didn't feel comfortable with telling the truth at the time, to the TRC about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Just about this one incident, the rest you substantially told the truth about?

MR BELLINGAN: There were quite a few things I didn't disclose at that stage to the TRC, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but in that document, in your hand-written document. The rest of the issues you refer to, are substantially true?

MR BELLINGAN: Substantially true, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It is only in respect of this murder, that you ...

MR BELLINGAN: The gross violation of human rights, yes. Only in respect of that one.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Chaskalson.

ADV GCABASHE: Just to clarify one final point for me, Mr Bellingan, you see, it comes back to the question of prejudice. What prejudice would you have suffered, because on my understanding of the facts of the murder, you would have been better off, excluding everybody else and simply telling the truth, I did it on my own. By telling a lie, you are now drawing attention to your colleagues, and I don't understand why you would do that if you are in fact trying to protect your colleagues?

MR BELLINGAN: In fact Mr Chairman, by saying that there some other, unknown person involved, I knew that they would investigate that and come back to me with information.

CHAIRPERSON: But what was it that you wanted to know about the murder? Hadn't you committed it yourself?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you know all of the facts around this thing, you were the only person involved, you planned it, you executed it, you knew exactly what happened? What else was there that you hoped an investigation on a wild goose chase by the TRC, would have disclosed to you?

MR BELLINGAN: I believed that I would get information which would help me in filling in my amnesty application, Mr Chairman. There is a number of things that I have a problem with, sitting in Maximum Prison Mr Chairman, for example dates, times, places. I have had absolutely no contact with the people in the Intelligence community after my incarceration. What were people saying, what to make of the threats, is there something else that I should be aware of pertaining to my family, etc, etc and then there was no pressure on me then, where it was said okay, now you must submit and sign your amnesty application.

That is particularly why I wanted the skeleton done Mr Chairman, to delay things until such time as we had a date for a hearing, or an investigation and then I could go and tell the truth. But in order to get information, it wouldn't help just saying I did this on my own, I planned it all, did it all myself. No, that I knew about, but were I to implicate some unknown person, then they would investigate and then they would come back to me because there was no other way that I could get information Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that is what I can't understand. What information did you want about the murder?

MR BELLINGAN: Any information that I could get, Mr Chairman, including any information that other people might have. Any information at all would have been helpful there in the completion of my amnesty application.

CHAIRPERSON: But who conceivably could have had any other information? You were the only person involved?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: So what else were you trying to obtain information wise, in respect of the murder through telling a lie to the TRC, send them on a wild goose chase to look for an accomplice which you know doesn't exist, which they would never be able to find?

MR BELLINGAN: Any information and all information that I could get about that, Mr Chairman. I wasn't getting any help from any attorneys at that stage, they were being threatened, there was no one else that I could really work with at that stage, except Mr - the informal discussions I was having with Mr Kjellberg and some of his colleagues, etc, etc.

So, it wasn't just about the murder Mr Chairman, it also went about what were people making of some of the documentation that I was sending. If Mr Kjellberg was investigating this matter, then he would be coming back and see me about it, Mr Chairman, and any information that he had, would be relevant to me.

Also what I could make of Mr Kjellberg in the meantime.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you intend to tell the truth in your eventual application in respect of the murder?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman, but there was a cover up Mr Chairman, and there was tampering with evidence. What did people make of that, the fact that I am going to apply for amnesty for this thing, what were people making of that?

Would there be further threats to me if I were to come along and say this is what my colleagues did? What would the position be Mr Chairman, and the only way I could find this out, for example, the Negroid hair that was introduced at the crime scene, is to invent this scenario and then see what comes back from the TRC.

What were the people saying about that?

CHAIRPERSON: So you were hoping that ...

MR BELLINGAN: Is there someone else from the PAC who applied for amnesty, is there somebody from, one of my colleagues who said all right, we in fact, there was no Askari or anyone involved over there, there was quite simply the Negroid hair was introduced in the forensic laboratory, then that would have been extremely useful information for me to know, for example.

CHAIRPERSON: So were you hoping that quite fortuitously, the investigation of the TRC on a wrong angle, on an untruthful angle, would disclose and help you with all these other queries that you had?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't think that by raising those queries directly, an investigation would have assisted your concerns?

MR BELLINGAN: I couldn't have raised it directly, I couldn't have said my colleagues were involved in a cover up, because I didn't feel that myself or my family were in a position where I could do that at that stage, Mr Chairman.

It was an early part of the TRC process and I felt uncomfortable about it. I was sitting isolated and I had to use my whatever you, I am sure the TRC isn't very impressed with it, but my abilities, what I could do, to get information that I could, in particular about this cover up and things like that.

CHAIRPERSON: How would that have impacted on your application, the fact that other people tried to cover up? You are now going to tell the truth, you don't intend lying in your application?

MR BELLINGAN: But there is boundaries to the truth, Mr Chairman. You can focus the truth in a narrow way or you can tell it in a more and more information. Actually there are things that I can tell the TRC that we can go on until the end of the year about my work in the Security Branch, work in the Intelligence Services and the broader intelligence community and Stratcom and the National Party, etc, etc. Where are the boundaries, where are the parameters, and so on and so forth.

What is happening, sitting alone, isolated in a small prison, Mr Chairman, that is all that I could do, that I could think of at the time in the absence of proper legal assistance, etc, etc. I felt comfortable with a foreigner about that too, comfortable in the one sense that I didn't think he was involved with the Intelligence community here, uncomfortable in the sense that well, you know, how far do you trust a foreigner, but I had to make up my mind about those things.

I felt that that was the only way I was going to get real information coming back from, not disinformation, not anything else, coming back from the TRC, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: By sending them on a wild goose chase? You would get back real information? You focus their attention on something which doesn't exist, fiction?

MR BELLINGAN: It was fiction.

CHAIRPERSON: And you are hoping that you would get real information back from that kind of investigation?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaskalson?

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you. Mr Bellingan, do you recall that in fact Mr Kjellberg did indeed come back to you, and discuss the concept application and in fact what he said to you was even with the concept application, you are probably going to have to give us more details. For instance, the two people who were with you, the National Intelligence type people, who were with you, who were they and you responded something to the effect of, at that time in this country, we did not ask those questions.

Any recollection?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I never said anyone from National Intelligence was with me, anyway, so I wouldn't have said that.

MR CHASKALSON: Sorry was it Military Intelligence that the two people in the concept statement were from?

MR BELLINGAN: I think I just referred to the presumption that I had made that they were from the Intelligence community.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay, fair enough, then let me phrase it in that form. Do you recall any such conversation?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't, Mr Chairman, no.

MR CHASKALSON: If Mr Kjellberg has told me that this is what happened, are you prepared to accept that it did happen or would you say that it is a fabrication?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I don't think Mr Kjellberg would fabricate. This thing just died a natural death Mr Chairman, nothing came of it. I didn't get any ...

MR CHASKALSON: No Mr Bellingan, that is precisely what I want to go into. You were asked for further information. You declined to respond to that further information.

You declined to ask the simple questions, if you were worried about information, why didn't you ask Mr Kjellberg has anybody else applied for amnesty for this event or for the cover up?

MR BELLINGAN: I did, and he said no.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay, and so why, what more would have come by putting out this concept with a lie in it?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, the context of the discussions couldn't have taken place safely, securely for me without putting forward the fiction. How would I possibly have these discussions with Mr Kjellberg without it forming part of some type of official application then?

MR CHASKALSON: It is called the truth Mr Bellingan. Why didn't you just write down the truth and say I did this by myself.

By the way Mr Kjellberg, I am quite interested in knowing if anybody else has applied for amnesty. What precludes you from doing that?

MR BELLINGAN: I think I have explained it at length.

MR CHASKALSON: Not adequately, but if that is your best answer, so be it.

Another thing that you mentioned to the Commissioner in passing is that you couldn't implicate other people in your concept statement, and so that is why you put it down. You didn't want to tell the truth because if you told the truth, you were involved in the murder alone, but others were involved in the cover up, and you said you didn't want to do that in your concept, so you made a lie and you said nobody else was involved? Correct?

MR BELLINGAN: I never mentioned any names Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Well, the strange thing is paragraph 23 of the concept document speaks about suppressed information about the murder of my wife and other covert operations. This aspect of intelligence work as well as the eliminations of those wishing to speak up, would not have been necessary had the Unity and Reconciliation Act been guaranteed.

And then when you look at page 22, which is a list of those people involved, you see you've got Gen Erasmus, Gen Smit, Colonel Oosthuizen and myself.

MR BELLINGAN: Page? At least sorry, what incident was that?

MR CHASKALSON: Incident 23, page 22, concept application.

MR BELLINGAN: Relating to what?

MR CHASKALSON: Relating to the cover up, the suppressing of information around the murder of your wife.

MR BELLINGAN: What was the question, sorry?

MR CHASKALSON: The question was you told us in response to a question from the Commissioner, that you could not tell the truth in your amnesty application, because it may have certain risks to you, there were all sorts of problems and you didn't want to implicate other people.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, if one has regard to the fiction, this discussion document, then as Mr Chaskalson has rightly pointed out, the NUMSA thing I have more or less told it as it was.

Now, there I refer in number 22 over here, I do refer to the NUMSA matter quite candidly and I have always been of the opinion that that was not a major problem, it is not a gross human rights' violation, I thought it would have been sorted out a long time ago on paper, in chambers, Mr Chairman, and I really didn't think that it would present such a huge problem for Gen Erasmus, Gen Smit, Colonel Oosthuizen, etc, etc.

MR CHASKALSON: May I ask who you implicate in your amnesty application that isn't one of those parties?

MR BELLINGAN: In answering that question Mr Chairman, it is important to me that at least those people should have agreed to that. It would have been a huge step forward in the submission of an amnesty application to myself, concerning the NUMSA matter.

If those people had agreed, yes okay, we did X, Y and Z, then I would have been well on my way to making, to submitting an amnesty application, knowing I am not just going to be told you are making this all up, all this 15 years of my work in the Security Branch.

I felt comfortable with mentioning those names in that context.

MR CHASKALSON: Who is implicated in your amnesty application that is not one of those people, who else do you implicate in your amnesty application for the cover up? Not in the concept document, or in the discussion document or anything else, in the only document that you consider to be your application? Who have you protected Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: Not before this forum Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: In the discussion document, who are you trying to protect other than possibly ...

MR BELLINGAN: Myself, my family.

MR CHASKALSON: I think you have done more harm than good to yourself, Mr Bellingan, but that will be decided upon later.

MR BELLINGAN: There are other people.

MR CHASKALSON: Aside from Erasmus ...

MR BELLINGAN: Can I just answer the question?

MR CHASKALSON: Yes.

MR BELLINGAN: There are other people too?

MR CHASKALSON: Who?

MR BELLINGAN: For example Calitz.

MR CHASKALSON: Sorry?

MR BELLINGAN: Major Calitz, Captain at the time of the incident, Captain Calitz. It must be quite abundantly clear to this Committee that the statement that he made and the statement I have made before this Committee, are hugely different. Why would he make a statement like this?

Why would ...(indistinct) make a statement like he made, unless it is all about a cover up Mr Chairman. The list goes on and on and I think I have explained all these things to the Committee in February.

MR CHASKALSON: Did you mention Calitz' name in your big application?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I didn't.

MR CHASKALSON: Who have you mentioned in the big application that was not mentioned in the discussion document?

MR BELLINGAN: By implication I do mention their names Mr Chairman, because it is quite obvious if I say I left at five o'clock and Calitz says I left Pietermaritzburg at nine o'clock or ten o'clock or whatever he says over here, which he said for example to the Magistrate's Court and before the Supreme Court, it is quite obvious that I am implicating them.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, can you just answer the question. Who is implicated in your amnesty application, that wasn't implicated in the discussion document, that you were protecting, that was one of the reasons you said you needed to lie to the Commission, you were protecting people?

I want to know who you were protecting. Was it your family?

MR BELLINGAN: That was one of my concerns, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay, now if we are talking your family, are we talking your children, are we talking your father, are we talking Judy White, are we talking a cousin that I am not aware of, who in your family were you worried was going to be put at risk?

MR BELLINGAN: The threat at the time was to my wife and children.

MR CHASKALSON: Okay, and this will be a threat that your former colleagues in the Security Branch would exact revenge on them?

MR BELLINGAN: The message I got was simply to say remember your family is still in a vulnerable position.

MR CHASKALSON: Right, so then you didn't want to mention the names of certain Security Branch members. Who are those members that you did not want to mention their names in the discussion document, but which you subsequently mentioned in your amnesty application?

MR BELLINGAN: That is exactly the point Mr Chairman, I have mentioned them and I have had an opportunity before the Committee. By implication I mention them in my main amnesty application.

MR CHASKALSON: So why couldn't you have told the truth? Why couldn't you have done the exact thing, I murdered my wife, I murdered her by myself, fullstop?

MR BELLINGAN: I did tell the truth Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: What is the problem? No, you didn't Mr Bellingan. What you said is that you came into contact with two unidentified people who told you a whole lot of stuff about your wife, and eventually you decided you needed to kill her.

MR BELLINGAN: Sorry, I misunderstood, I thought Mr Chaskalson was talking about my amnesty application.

MR CHASKALSON: I am asking why you lied to the Commission, what would have stopped you from simply have telling the truth?

MR BELLINGAN: When did I lie to the Commission?

MR CHASKALSON: In your discussion document you lie when you tell us about two mysterious strangers, about being driven to Durban and about trying to steel documents from your wife and not trying to murder her.

MR BELLINGAN: I never intended to lie to the Commission.

MR CHASKALSON: No Mr Bellingan, you did intend to lie to the Commission. What you have said is you didn't feel you were under an obligation to tell the truth to the Commission.

MR BELLINGAN: That is a fiction.

MR CHASKALSON: But I want to know why you would have given this information to the Commission, why not simply tell the truth? Why are you in any worse a position?

MR BELLINGAN: Well, I have answered it so many times already Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: You said you wanted to protect people. We have now established who you wished to protect. You also said that you wanted to in some way, you didn't want to implicate all your former colleagues and the question that I am asking you is, who did you implicate in your true application that wasn't implicated in the first application? It is a simple question.

MR BELLINGAN: Quite a number of people, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: In the sense Mr Bellingan, of naming them, not by implication, by naming one time and in that person's affidavit, that person refers to a different time, in the sense of naming them as appears from the discussion document.

MR BELLINGAN: You see Mr Chairman, had they gone out and done some proper and thorough investigation at the time that I gave them this, or at the time when this fictional documentation was dealt with informally between myself and presumably Mr Kjellberg, then they would have been in a position, when I gave them the true facts, they would immediately be able to put two and two together, so that when I came here and said what I did to the Commission, they would know that that was the truth.

The fact that they still haven't done that, or haven't understood that, isn't my problem Mr Chairman. It is quite obvious from all the evidence that these people must have been through, as to exactly I am naming. It must be quite obvious, to mention the names, isn't really necessary even.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, for my question it is. Is there anybody else in addition to those people that you have referred to, named, in your discussion document, that you name in your application proper as you say, your big one?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall Mr Chairman, this thing fizzled out and died a natural death until it became important again when the TRC included it in the amnesty application.

I haven't actually sat down and done that kind of - it wasn't necessary for me to think and apply my mind to that at all, Mr Chairman. It was not the intention of this, and I can't give you an honest and candid answer on that, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: I believe the suggestion is that you simply repeat the names that you had disclosed in your discussion document?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, no, it must be clear to Mr Chaskalson by now, that that is not the case.

CHAIRPERSON: It was not the case?

MR BELLINGAN: No.

CHAIRPERSON: I am just trying to ascertain what is the factual position. Can't you answer, you can't tell me whether you are simply repeating the same names which appear in your discussion document, in your application proper?

MR BELLINGAN: There may be different ...

CHAIRPERSON: You can't answer that?

MR BELLINGAN: No, there may be different names. I haven't sat down and analysed this document in the context of these hearings because what does it matter?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I accept that. It might be cleared up later on.

MR BELLINGAN: Thank you Mr Chair.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Chaskalson, may I just come in here. What I find very confusing at the moment, perhaps I will be taking you back a little Mr Bellingan, you said that in your discussion document, you did not want to cause any problems to put your family at risk and that you did not implicate any of your colleagues in the paragraph 22, relating to the murder? Is that correct, the untruthful part, paragraph 22 about the murder, there you did not wish to implicate any of your colleagues because it would put you and your family at risk? Did I understand you correctly?

MR BELLINGAN: I think that was one of my motives.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes. Now if you look at the middle of page 12, in the middle of the page, you particularly suggest that Gen Erasmus had something to do with the murder because what you say there, it is about the middle of the page, he used the same words, let's just go back, you said that this person told you about the sensitivity and about what Janine had and he used the same words as Gen Erasmus, that is "manage the problem".

Gen Erasmus had used these words regarding any investigation into the NUMSA matter. On my reading of those sentences, you are suggesting that Gen Erasmus was the driving force behind these two unknown people. This confuses me.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, that was exactly the point. I remember now that at the time, I would very much have appreciated if the TRC could have got Gen Erasmus to admit to the NUMSA matter, it would have made my life a lot easier.

For him to be involved, strictly in terms of the NUMSA matter, it would have made my life a lot easier, they would have come back to me and said yes, you are quite right about that. He is applying for amnesty for it, it will be sorted out in chambers and then I am halfway home, Mr Chairman.

Then when I come with my amnesty application, I can then tell the situation as it was, with the NUMSA matter at least out of the way, as it were. So in terms of implicating, I have said that I haven't minded implicating them in things which are not gross violations of human rights', with the fictional document.

ADV BOSMAN: But that is exactly my point. You are implicating him in a gross violation of human rights', in this document, in this fictional document.

You say that the unknown person had used the same words as Gen Erasmus, manage the problem. In other words, you are saying there is some connection between this unknown person and Gen Erasmus. You proceed to say Gen Erasmus had used these words regarding any investigation into the NUMSA matter, but you are connecting it with the - this is how I read it. Tell me if I am wrong.

MR BELLINGAN: No, my intention here Mr Chairman, was simply to start to shape Mr Kjellberg's way of thinking about these things. This was a common, this was common terminology.

How would I introduce this terminology into Mr Kjellberg's thinking and get feedback from him, has he indeed discovered this fact that there were these euphemisms used and to what extent are people admitting to it, unless I put it in some type of context?

The fiction worked for me over there, because Mr Kjellberg indeed came back at a certain point in time, and said yes, he is now well aware of these type of things. If one has regard to the conversation in March, it is quite clear that Mr Kjellberg was aware of these euphemistic terms that were used, manage the problem, eliminate, sort this out, these type of terminologies.

I wanted to know, is that what they are getting, is that the feedback that they are getting, and I did get that feedback Mr Chairman. I was pleased to hear that the TRC was getting the picture.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Bellingan, I don't want to take the matter much further, my only problem is that you are using this manage the problem not in relation only to NUMSA, but in relation to the fictional facts you put before the Commission in regard to the murder. That is my difficulty.

MR BELLINGAN: But it would be very easy for Mr Erasmus to say about that, no, Mike understood me wrong, and that it was only in regard to the NUMSA matter that I used that, not in regard to the murder. And then in that way, I would have had him at least admit to the NUMSA matter, Mr Chairman.

ADV BOSMAN: I won't take it any further, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will adjourn the proceedings at this stage.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Chairman, with your leave, I am practically over and if you would give me five minutes, I can conclude.

CHAIRPERSON: All right.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, I still do not understand any of the answers you have given in this regard, I don't want to traverse it again. I just put it to you that your explanation is nonsensical and that this indeed was an amnesty application which for some or other reason, or and some or other reason, you decided to change your version at a later stage.

MR BELLINGAN: That is incorrect Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: I think I have already done it, but I may as well just do it again for the record, I will put it to you Mr Bellingan, that the murder of your late wife, Janine Bellingan, was not a politically motivated incident, neither have you made full disclosure to this Commission about that incident.

MR BELLINGAN: That is not correct Mr Chairman. I believe that the answer to the first question should be abundantly evident, and as to the second one, the full disclosure, I believe I have made full disclosure.

MR CHASKALSON: And I will put the exact same two points to you in regard to the NUMSA theft. This was not a political matter and neither have you made a full disclosure of your entire involvement or your true involvement in those events.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I have made full relevant disclosure.

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you Mr Chairman. I have no further questions, however, my colleague, Adv Hattingh, I think would like to request your ruling in regard to a certain matter which won't take long.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CHASKALSON

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. Yes, we are now at the stage where I need to do my re-examination of my client.

Now, with the particular circumstances I am in, I will request this Committee and obviously on record, for the opportunity to now sit down with my client and consult with him. This is not the normal thing to do to consult with your client between cross-examination and re-examination, however, it is not an improper thing to do, but it is something that you would normally ask the permission of either the other parties and or the Presiding Officer, and in the circumstances, I need to consult with my client.

I am obviously running the risk of whatever people would like to make of this in the end, if I now come back and do re-examination and perhaps bring something to the fore which is now, which may raise questions. However, I am going to take the risk, I would like to consult with my client, and I am just asking permission of this Committee and the other people to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Have any of the parties got a problem with that, given the circumstances surrounding Mr Hattingh's late entry to this? Is there any objection to that? All right.

Mr Hattingh, no, the Panel certainly also, taking into consideration the situation in which you had entered into the matter, it is not the usual situation that we have here, and it appears prima facie to be in the best interest and in the interest of justice to actually allow you to speak to your client in regard to re-examination.

MR BELLINGAN: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: May I come in here, I had a quick glance at the Act. I agree that this is not a usual request, I have never seen something like this before, but in terms of Section 30(1) of your Act, it seems as if you are allowed to determine the procedure if nothing is prescribed. So it seems as if you are entitled to make a ruling as you have just done, in terms of this Section.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, we are happy to know that we have acted lawfully Mr Hattingh, so it appears that the law is also on our side, not only justice.

We will adjourn the proceedings until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS