ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. We should place on record, I think, that it has been agreed that the leader of evidence will reserve her cross-examination of Mr Bellingan until she has managed to obtain certain other information. However, so as not to waste time, it has been agreed that the second applicant, Mr Mbelo, will commence his application and will give his evidence in-chief this afternoon and we will then adjourn till tomorrow.

MR P WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr Chairman, members of the Committee. Mr Mbelo will testify in Tswana. Mr Mbelo,

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Mbelo, can we have your names in full?

MR MBELO: Tikapela Johannes Mbelo.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MS KHAMPEPE: Sorry about that.

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: (Duly sworn in, states).

EXAMINATION BY MR P WILLIAMS:

MR P WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mbelo, your formal application is contained on pages 224 until page 232. Is that correct? That is on form one.

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MR P WILLIAMS: And then on page 233 you give some police background. Is that correct?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MR P WILLIAMS: You give a more detailed statement with regard to the facts and circumstances relevant to this amnesty application starting on page 234. Is that correct?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MR P WILLIAMS: Can you confirm that in paragraphs one, two and three you basically deal with your personal background and history?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MR P WILLIAMS: And when did you join the South African Police?

MR MBELO: It was in 1981 in March.

MR P WILLIAMS: Can you inform the Committee how did you or how were you recruited into the South African, into the security branch of the South African Police Service?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MS KHAMPEPE: It is on.

MR P WILLIAMS: It is on.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Mbelo, (not translated).

MR MBELO: Okay. I was recruited whilst I was doing my basic police training in Hammanskraal in 1982. I was recruited by Colonel Baker so as to become a member of the security branch.

MR P WILLIAMS: Do you know when did you actually join the security branch?

MR MBELO: It was immediately after my completion of my police training in 1982.

MR P WILLIAMS: Now, in paragraph five of your application you state that 15 policemen showed an interest in joining the security police and of the 15 only seven of you were selected, of which you were one. Is that correct?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MR P WILLIAMS: Now, let us go to paragraph six. When you joined the security police, did they tell you what your duties would entail?

MR MBELO: They never told me what my duties were going to be, but I was just told that we were going to be stationed in the security headquarters under the security headquarters battalion.

MR P WILLIAMS: And is it correct that you were then taken to

a farm known as Vlakplaas, a so-called anti-terrorist unit?

MR MBELO: Yes, when we got there we did not know what that farm was called.

MR P WILLIAMS: Can you tell the Commission when is the first time that you heard that this is actually called Vlakplaas?

MR MBELO: That was after a few days when I was at that farm.

MR P WILLIAMS: And can you confirm that the first two people that were based at Vlakplaas that you actually met were David Jikalanga and Almond Mufamela?

MR MBELO: During my training David Jikalanga was doing his training as well in Hammanskraal and he was one of the people who went to collect us from the college.

MR P WILLIAMS: And can you inform, confirm that members of the initials groups that you were part of were, included people like Joe Mamasela, Brian Galunga, Moses Shabalala and Mr Bellingan?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MR P WILLIAMS: And your first mission was to patrol the Western Transvaal Border?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MR P WILLIAMS: In paragraph seven of your application you basically deal with, what you call, indoctrination, that you were indoctrinated about the so-called total onslaught which the ANC, the PAC and other liberation movements were waging against the apartheid regime. Is that correct?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MR P WILLIAMS: And you also state that it is common knowledge that the ANC, at that stage, wanted to make South Africa ungovernable and thereby create the conditions for the overthrow of the apartheid regime.

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.

MR P WILLIAMS: Can you tell the Committee, at

Vlakplaas itself, how did the people, who were based at Vlakplaas, how did they operate?

MR MBELO: At Vlakplaas we were split into a few groups. The, we were in few numbers in these groups and each group had a leader. We were spread throughout the provinces of South Africa.

MR P WILLIAMS: You confirm at that stage, you confirm that the groups were never, you never worked in a fixed group and that the groups often changed?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Chairperson.

MR P WILLIAMS: As was the testimony of Mr Bellingan?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.

MR P WILLIAMS: And you also confirm that you were requested by different regions of the security branch to go to a particular area and assist there?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.

MR P WILLIAMS: And that whenever you were in a specific town for a specific operation, that the local security police branch would assist you there?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.

MR P WILLIAMS: In paragraph nine of your application you confirm that you have seen Minister Adriaan Vlok there at the party on one occasion. This is also confirmed by Mr Bellingan and, in an affidavit, by, from Mr Adriaan Vlok himself. Is that correct?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.

MR P WILLIAMS: In paragraph ten you say that apart from or that you were part of a group called C10 and that apart from C10, there were also other groups like C11, that you were unaware of the activities of the other groups?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MR P WILLIAMS: Paragraph 11 you mention that you frequented shebeens and hotels. Can you tell the Commission what was the purpose of that?

MR MBELO: We had to visit hotels and shebeens in order to scan the areas and at train stations so that the askaris should be able to identify all the people that they were trained with in exile.

MR P WILLIAMS: Okay, Mr Mbelo, let us come to the substantive part of your application.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before you go on, can I ask something at this stage. Do I understand from what you have just said that the idea was that the askaris should go to as many public places as possible where they would see other people in the hope of being able to recognise people they had trained with?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Chairperson.

MR P WILLIAMS: Now, let us deal with the substantive part of, when is the very first time that you visited Cape Town for this particular mission?

MR MBELO: It was in the beginning of 1986 when we came here to Cape Town for this Guguletu 7 mission.

MR P WILLIAMS: Now, prior to 1986, were you ever in the Western Cape or in Cape Town?

MR MBELO: No, it was not my first time.

MR P WILLIAMS: But before 1986 you came here in, with regard to other activities, not so?

MR MBELO: It was missions that had nothing to do with Guguletu 7.

MR P WILLIAMS: And is it correct that when you came down to Cape Town you were accompanied by Mr Eric Maluleka, amongst others, Mr Jimmy Mbane, Mr Bellingan and Captain Moss, who

we learnt, at that stage, was a Warrant Officer?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MR P WILLIAMS: Now, with regard to this particular mission, is it correct that you were told to infiltrate a certain group?

MR MBELO: This is the situation. Before I was sent to this particular group there was a prisoner held at the police station cells who I was given instructions to get some names of his comrades and I slept with him in the cell and the following day I had to tell him that my lawyer was there to release me.

MR P WILLIAMS: You may continue.

MR MBELO: Sorry. He told me that my lawyer had come to rescue me and, therefore, he had to give me my address where he was staying in Guguletu.

MS KHAMPEPE: I think there has to be some, Mr Mbelo told him. It is Mr Mbelo who told his lawyer had come to release him the next day.

MR MBELO: The, my commander said I must tell him that my lawyer has come to release me, because whilst I was in the cell there was an impression created that I was being questioned and therefore I had to tell them if there was any progress made with this man in the cell.

MR P WILLIAMS: So, due to the contact that you have made with this person in the cell, were you able to infiltrate a group in Crossroads?

MR MBELO: Yes, I managed to go to the address that he gave me and I met his brother and he took me to Crossroads. That is where I met a group of 20 people in one house. Whilst I was there I heard there was one named Commander comrade Chris and that is the group that I met on that day.

MR P WILLIAMS: Can you tell the Committee what was the purpose of infiltrating this group?

MR MBELO: The purpose of this infiltration was to actually establish who they were and what were they doing. I had to establish as to whether they were doing all the attacks that were in Crossroads.

MR P WILLIAMS: Was your purpose at any stage to train these people or to arm these people?

MR MBELO: No.

MR P WILLIAMS: Now, whilst you were with this group did you see any weapons in their house or on their persons?

MR MBELO: I never saw any arms in their possession or in their house.

MR P WILLIAMS: How long did you stay with this group?

MR MBELO: I spent only one night with them and the following day I went back, because some of them became suspicious.

MR P WILLIAMS: Ja, and is it correct that they were asked, that you provide them with a contact person who can vouch for you?

MR MBELO: Yes, I, they wanted to know who was I responsible, accounting to in Johannesburg. Then I just gave them a name and the following day they said that they will go and confirm as to whether this person knows me and my background.

MR P WILLIAMS: So, you then left the next morning?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.

MR P WILLIAMS: And is it correct that Eric Maluleka and Jimmy Mbane were then sent to infiltrate this group?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.

MR P WILLIAMS: I have had insight into a statement purporting to come from Jimmy Mbane and he says that himself and, if I remember correctly, Thabiso was sent. Can you comment on that?

MR MBELO: I cannot say anything about Thabiso, because the people who were sent on that particular day of the Guguletu 7, it was Eric and Jimmy.

MR P WILLIAMS: And then on paragraph, in paragraph 15 you say that,

Were you present when that request was made?

MR MBELO: Yes, I was present, because Jimmy met with Bellingan at the Parade and we were to offer them security at that time.

MR P WILLIAMS: Now, with regard to the incident itself, which occurred on the third of March, firstly can you tell the Committee how did you come to know or when is the very first time that you became aware of this impending incident or ...?

MR MBELO: It was about a week before this.

MR P WILLIAMS: Ja, can you give more specifics or detail?

MR MBELO: Because Mr Bellingan, he was our Commander, he told us that Jimmy has reported that there is a planned attack on policemen and he is not sure as to when is this going to happen and, therefore, we should be alert.

MR P WILLIAMS: And is it correct that in the early hours of the third of March 1986 you were called to a meeting at Wingfield and that yourself, your Commander, Sergeant Bellingan, at that stage, and that representatives of the Riot Squad, Murder and Robbery Squad and security branch were there?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MR P WILLIAMS: That Captain Liebenberg led the security branch component and Captain Kleyn led the Murder and Robbery Squad component.

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MR P WILLIAMS: And that apart from yourself and Bellingan, Mr Nobela, who was also from Vlakplaas, were also there?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MR P WILLIAMS: Can you then, in your own words, describe what occurred at this meeting, what discussions took place and what decisions were made?

MR MBELO: At that meeting there was a map produced of the area where the attack was to take place and people were deployed and given specific instructions as to which positions to occupy. We were told to be very careful as these people are extremely dangerous and they are heavily armed.

MR P WILLIAMS: What were your instructions, what were you going to do at the scene?

MR MBELO: At, myself, I knew that it would be impossible to arrest armed men. I knew that these men were going to shoot, because the words that were used there is that they should be eliminated.

MR P WILLIAMS: What other words were used?

MR MBELO: To be taken out, they had to be eliminated.

MR P WILLIAMS: If I can just ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Did he say "taken out" in English?

MR P WILLIAMS: Ja, he did, he said that.

What other words were used?

MR MBELO: To be swept, they had to be swept.

MR P WILLIAMS: Sweep. Now, according to your knowledge, what do these or what do you, what do these words mean?

MR MBELO: It means killing.

MR P WILLIAMS: Now, were those the words that were used at the actual planning meeting?

MR MBELO: They were used several times in the meeting and even before the meeting was held. Throughout the planning, whilst Jimmy Mbane was in Crossroads, these words were used.

MR P WILLIAMS: Were you at any stage told that if you were able to capture or arrest any of the freedom fighters, that you should do so?

MR MBELO: No, I do not remember being given such instructions to arrest them.

MR P WILLIAMS: When you left that meeting what was the overall impression that you had, what should you do to the freedom fighters?

MR MBELO: When we left that meeting, in my mind I knew that we were going to fight and even the manner in which the policemen were deployed and everyone was prepared to shoot before being killed.

MR P WILLIAMS: So, is it correct then, that your mission clearly was that you should go out and there and that you should kill the freedom fighters?

MR MBELO: According to the situation, yes, it was so.

MR P WILLIAMS: I will ... (intervention).

MS KHAMPEPE: Sorry. Were you instructed, that is the question which is being put to you.

MR MBELO: We were not told that we must kill them, but words to that effect were used.

MR P WILLIAMS: So, if I understand you correctly, the word "kill" or "murder" was never used?

MR MBELO: No.

MR P WILLIAMS: But the words "sweep" and "take them out" were used?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.

MR P WILLIAMS: Which, to your mind, meant to kill?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.

MR P WILLIAMS: I will quickly refer you to paragraph 18 of your affidavit. In the first section of that you deal with an inference that you have arrived at. You say that the, you assumed that the people knew that you were from Vlakplaas?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.

MR P WILLIAMS: And you also say that from the minute that you heard that the group intended attacking the police minibus, you took (...indistinct) in a serious light and that you personally believed that the group would carry out the attack. Is that correct?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MR P WILLIAMS: You also say that you were brought under the impression that the group associated themselves with the ANC or the UDF, because they called each other comrades?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir, makabane means comrades.

MR P WILLIAMS: And on the following page you deal with certain submissions contained with certain statements contained in the second submission of the ANC to the Truth Commission, dated the 12th of May and is it correct that you merely include this section, because at the stage you had the perception that you were identified as a legitimate target for attack?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MR P WILLIAMS: And that the ANC in their submission merely confirm that policemen were regarded as enemy of the people and that they could be attacked.

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Chairperson.

MR P WILLIAMS: The second last part of paragraph 18 you say that acts of torture were commonplace within the security establishment and that you had personally participated in acts of torture. Is that correct?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MR P WILLIAMS: And then you list some of the shock or the torture methods that were used?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MR P WILLIAMS: Now, you are saying that at the planning meeting or, in fact, you were brought to believe that the mission of the group was to attack a police mini-bus. Can you give a definitive opinion whether this was, in fact, their true mission?

MR MBELO: I would tell this court that I believed that these men were going to attack this bus, but after a few things were revealed I realised that because of the rumours that they were being influenced to do this ...

MR P WILLIAMS: You are stating that that is rumours?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MR P WILLIAMS: But is it correct that at the time of the incident itself you personally believed that they were going to attack the police?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.

MR P WILLIAMS: And is it also correct that whilst or the night that you were, that you spent with the group, that you were informed by members of the group that they were patrolling the area on a nightly basis?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.

MR P WILLIAMS: Now, can you just proceed to the attack itself. If I can refer to the map or to the sketch, where were you based on this morning of the attack?

MR MBELO: On that morning of the attack I was in NY11 right at the top of the street. I think five streets from where Mr Bellingan was.

MR P WILLIAMS: And then can you continue?

MR MBELO: Whilst we were there we were told that the bus has passed, therefore, we can disperse. I came down driving NY11 in a Kombi. When I got to the intersection I saw men on my right-hand side.

MR P WILLIAMS: Before you proceed, is it correct that you were driving from east to west?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MR P WILLIAMS: Please continue on the, from east, on the map, into a western direction, down NY111.

CHAIRPERSON: He was driving from where Mr Bellingan had been parked.

MR P WILLIAMS: That is correct.

Mr Chairman, I must just point out that it, he testified earlier that he was based further down the road and he proceeded past the place where Mr Bellingan was parked.

Continue.

MR MBELO: As I approached the intersection of NY111 and NY1, I saw men on my right-hand side. Sorry, sorry. I told the other cars via a radio that it seems that these men are already here at this intersection. I went across over NY1 and proceeded NY111 and approached a Dairy Belle Hostel from behind and I rejoined NY1 and when I arrived at the corner I unloaded the Riot Squad Police there.

MR P WILLIAMS: Excuse me, when is the first time or where were you when you for the first time heard shots being fired?

MR MBELO: Whilst I was behind the Dairy Belle Hostel I heard some shots being fired. As, when I appeared from the corner approaching NY1 I saw a man running carrying a firearm.

MR P WILLIAMS: Did you recognise that man?

MR MBELO: He was a Rasta man called Chris. I saw him at that house. Having passed him, he fell down. He was being shot. I brought the Kombi at a stop, where it was supposed to be.

MR P WILLIAMS: Did you, just before we get to that portion. Did you see who shot Mr Chris?

MR MBELO: No, I did not see, because there were shots fired from all angles.

MR P WILLIAMS: Did you see anyone else being shot or lying on the ground at that stage?

MR MBELO: At that time I did not notice anyone lying on the ground. The only person I saw again is the one, is the person I shot.

MR P WILLIAMS: Now, can you tell the Committee, did you bring the, your car to a standstill or how did it come to stop?

MR MBELO: If I recall correctly, this car was already damaged in the engine, because it was being shot.

MR P WILLIAMS: Now, what, after the car came to a standstill, what happened next?

MR MBELO: A man approached us raising his arms and he was talking in Xhosa saying that he will take us to where the rest of the group is. One Sergeant from the Riot unit, he was a White Sergeant, said I should shoot this man and before I shot this man, as he was raising his arms, I saw his firearm and, therefore, we disarmed him. The White Sergeant, I told him that this man was going to take us to where the rest of the team is, but he just said I must shoot him. I shot him whilst he was lying on his back, I shot him in the head. Thereafter this Sergeant told me that I should sit and he shot him in his stomach with the R1 Rifle whilst still lying on his back.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you please show us how he raised his arms? The applicant stood up holding his arms raised in the manner traditionally assumed when wishing to surrender, the hands-up position.

MR P WILLIAMS: And is it correct that this person who approached you at no time attempted to shoot you?

MR MBELO: He never tried to shoot us or even to reach for his firearm.

MR P WILLIAMS: Did you personally see how any of the other freedom fighters were killed?

MR MBELO: Yes, I saw the one who was being shot by Captain Bellingan. It seemed as if he dragged him before actually shooting him.

MR P WILLIAMS: Do you know how many times he was shot?

MR MBELO: The, he shot twice. He first dragged him out, then he shot him. They were shooting from all directions, but I could not actually see whether was he, did he shoot him more than twice, but he was on his side.

CHAIRPERSON: On his side, lying on the ground?

MR MBELO: Chairperson, the last time I saw him he was dragging him and shooting, but when this, when everything happened I was already looking the other direction, because of all this wild shooting.

MR P WILLIAMS: Now, did you at any stage see Mr Jabu being shot?

MR MBELO: I never saw who shot him, I just saw him lying on the ground.

MR P WILLIAMS: Now, in your affidavit, paragraph 22 you say that you are aware that Jimmy and Eric had weapons in their possession and at the time when they fled, they left the weapons in the bush?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MR P WILLIAMS: And that the weapons were later found by Bellingan and it was supposed to be collected and used as evidence that were being attacked?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.

MR P WILLIAMS: And you also mention in paragraph 23 that you bordered a helicopter later on. Can you tell the Commission what was the purpose of that?

MR MBELO: I do not know how to explain why I bordered this helicopter, because according to me, if I was an attacker, you, in the ...

INTERPRETER: Please repeat that. The interpretation did not get that.

MR P WILLIAMS: Can you please repeat what you said?

MR MBELO: According to my knowledge I did not know what was the reason for me to go on this helicopter. I could, there was no reason why should I board a helicopter to search for people who had already run away, because it would be difficult to find those people.

MR P WILLIAMS: So, would you say that it had any sense in using the helicopter and circulating the area? Was there any sense in doing that, according to you?

MR MBELO: According to me, there, a lot of time had already passed after this incident. It would not be easy to find whoever managed to run away.

MR P WILLIAMS: Now, subsequent to this incident you made an affidavit. Is that correct?

MR MBELO: Yes, I wrote a statement.

MR P WILLIAMS: What happened to the statement?

MR MBELO: Mr Bellingan told me that my statement was unacceptable and he redrafted it and it was typed and I signed it and it was certified by Major Brits.

MR P WILLIAMS: And is it correct that you have testified in previous court proceeding and commissions of inquiry relevant to this matter?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.

MR P WILLIAMS: And in those proceedings you told lies?

MR MBELO: Yes, it was all lies.

MR P WILLIAMS: Can you tell the Commission why did you lie at that stage?

MR MBELO: My commanders instructed us to change all facts.

MR P WILLIAMS: So, what you are saying is that your commanders at the time told you to tell lies?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.

MR P WILLIAMS: Did you get any reward for this particular operation?

MR MBELO: I received R1 000,00.

MR P WILLIAMS: Now, can you recall when was this R1 000,00 given to you?

MR MBELO: We were handed this money in Koeberg.

MR P WILLIAMS: Before this operation or at ... (intervention).

JUDGE MILLER: Sorry, sorry Mr Williams, the question was when they, when did they receive this R1 000,00 and the answer was in Koeberg, but when in Koeberg?

MR P WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr Miller, Judge Miller.

MR MBELO: After the Guguletu operation.

MR P WILLIAMS: Was that on the same day or subsequent to that?

MR MBELO: It was not on the same day, just a few days after the event.

MR P WILLIAMS: Now, did you participate in this event or did you shoot this particular person, because you know that you were going to get a reward?

MR MBELO: No, Sir.

MR P WILLIAMS: Did you know beforehand that you received

R1 000,00 or any monetary award for your action?

MR MBELO: No, it was a wonder, because it was all in the delivery of the daily duties.

MR P WILLIAMS: Did you get the reward before this, before this incident?

MR MBELO: No, it was the first time.

MR P WILLIAMS: And did you act for personal gain or out of personal malice or ill-will or spite in this matter?

MR MBELO: No, Sir.

MR P WILLIAMS: If you must tell the Committee today and the public, why did you shoot this particular person?

MR MBELO: I shot him following instructions from those in command.

MR P WILLIAMS: Today you are testifying here before the Truth Commission and you know that there are families of the deceased and, possibly, the family of the victim that you shot. How do you feel towards the families today in, for what you have done?

MR MBELO: I believe what I have done has hurt a lot of people and I request the parents and the family members who lost all their beloved ones to please pardon me and the country at large.

MR P WILLIAMS: But at the time of this incident how did you view the ANC?

MR MBELO: At that time, as a policeman, the ANC was an enemy.

MR P WILLIAMS: And is it correct that at that stage you regarded them as terrorists or ...?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir. (end of tape 2A).

MR P WILLIAMS: How do you feel about the ANC today?

MR MBELO: I have accepted the ANC as the correct regime and I will serve it and the county and the citizens as well. It is not similar to what we were being doctored about that we would look like third world countries should the ANC take over.

MR P WILLIAMS: Do you believe, do you today believe that the ANC, at that stage, were fighting for the liberation of this country?

MR MBELO: At this stage, yes, I do, because we can clearly see the fruit of what they were fighting for and today we have got a Constitution that we did not have at the time of the apartheid regime.

MR P WILLIAMS: Are there anything else that you wish to say at this stage before I stop?

MR MBELO: I would plead for forgiveness from the parents and the families and I am prepared to meet them one by one to ask for forgiveness, if they allow me, thank you.

MR P WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, that concludes Mr Mbelo's testimony for today, with your permission.

CHAIRPERSON: In terms of the agreement, we will now adjourn, rather than get mixed up in two cross-examinations at the same time. I gather nine o' clock is a little difficult for some of the persons present. We will adjourn till 09H30 tomorrow morning.

MS PATEL: Will everyone please rise.

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: (Still under oath).

CHAIRPERSON: We revert now to the second applicant. He had concluded his evidence in chief, had he.

MR P WILLIAMS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS:

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Mbelo, let us first deal with your initial infiltration of this group. Now, this happened after you were allegedly in jail and you were then allegedly released and you went to meet these people. You recall that?

MR MBELO: Yes, Mr Chairman, I do recall it.

MR BOOYENS: Are you going to reply in English? Are you not going to use an interpreter?

MR MBELO: I am going to reply in English, because it seems as if I am, they do not understand me very good.

MR BOOYENS: Well, thank you, I, that will certainly shorten things.

Mr Mbelo, the group that you visited, did you think they were dangerous?

MR MBELO: According to what I was told, that this group might be a well trained group, I thought that they were dangerous.

MR BOOYENS: Your own observations?

MR MBELO: My own observations, I saw nothing of that sort when I arrived there.

MR BOOYENS: Why then run away after just one night?

MR MBELO: Because my legend was not good. They could have checked the following day.

MR BOOYENS: Why go in at all if you know your legend was not ...

MR MBELO: I did not expect them to ask me what they asked me. I did not expect them to ask me for a contact number where I told them I was from.

MR BOOYENS: Subsequently, when you dealt with these people again, later at the shootout and you are aware that they were, are you aware that they were shooting, they were armed?

MR MBELO: Yes, I saw one guy who was running and shooting.

MR BOOYENS: Shooting with what, AK?

MR MBELO: With an AK47 and we were told that morning that those guys are well armed and they are going to attack a certain mini-bus.

MR BOOYENS: Very well. Now, let us deal with that planning meeting that you attended.

You speak good English I see, do you speak Afrikaans as well?

MR MBELO: I am very good in both languages, Afrikaans, Sesotho and English.

MR BOOYENS: The meeting early that morning, just for the sake of clarity, Bellingan was not the senior officer there, is that correct. He was just a Sergeant and there were Commissioned Officers there present. Is that correct?

MR MBELO: It is correct, but Mr Bellingan, since he told even the Committee that Lieutenant Liebenberg was still young, he did not have any, what you can call it, he was not so good in organising such big thing, operations since he was still young. He was a young Commissioned Officer that time.

MR BOOYENS: No, but the man in charge of the operation. Do not switch that on when I am talking please, because then you switch mine off.

The man that was in charge of the operation was actually Major Odendal, not so. He was the senior Commissioned Officer?

MR MBELO: I do say, yes, he was the highest rank there.

MR BOOYENS: And we are not suggesting that Mr Bellingan did not take part in the discussions, but, certainly, he was not the only one who told people what to do, set out various positions ...

MR MBELO: Sorry, I thought, that is right.

MR BOOYENS: As far as the planning on the ground is concerned, did Major Odendal also play a role there?

MR MBELO: Yes, he did play a role since he was also a Major on the planning.

MR BOOYENS: Now, Mr Mbelo, did, you have been a policeman for quite a long time, not so?

MR MBELO: That is right.

MR BOOYENS: In the first place, it is the duty of a policeman to apprehend criminals, not so?

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: One would not expect them to tell you that it is your duty, you would know that automatically?

MR MBELO: That is what we are taught at the college.

MR BOOYENS: And what you know as well?

MR MBELO: That is right.

MR BOOYENS: Did Odendal suggest that these people should be eliminated, swept, taken out, whatever?

MR MBELO: Those words were not uttered by Odendal.

MR BOOYENS: Did any of the Murder and Robbery people suggest that?

MR MBELO: No, Sir, none of them.

MR BOOYENS: So, they gave an instruction to what, all intense and purposes, appeared to be a regular police operation to apprehend criminals in extremely dangerous circumstances, would that be correct?

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: So, after they finished speaking you were clearly under the impression that these people had to be arrested. Is that ...

MR MBELO: That is right, I was under that impression, but there were some words which were used. Words like, like I said before in my main evidence, that they had to be taken out.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, some people said that, but the people in charge of the operation never said that. Is that right?

MR MBELO: That is right.

MR BOOYENS: So, amongst the lower ranks there was talk about taken out or swept or something like that, is it not correct, Mr Mbelo, that everybody was excited. It, this was dangerous and didn't you yourself expected a fire-fight this morning?

MR MBELO: I did.

MR BOOYENS: And Mr Bellingan says that it is quite possible that he said, listen, if a man lifts a gun, shoot him and shoot to kill, because this was a war-type situation. Is it possibly what you have heard?

MR MBELO: That is right.

MR BOOYENS: But so we were not dealing with an unqualified taking out of people or something like that, it was a situation if they start the fight, we will fight back, we will fight better and we will win. Is that more or less correct?

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: No suggestion at any stage that if they surrender or if we can do this without a fight, we will, in any case murder them, that was never suggested by any of them, anybody. Is that correct?

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: So, Mr Mbelo, you are also applying for amnesty and, please, do not misunderstand me. I understand that you were in a difficult situation at the time. Now, once this fire-fight started you must have been extremely excited, frightened and, like they say, the adrenalin was pumping, not so?

MR MBELO: I cannot say I was excited. All I can say is I was frightened.

MR BOOYENS: Ja, excited, perhaps, does not convey exactly. It was a high tension situation. Would that be, more or less, a correct summary?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: And even those decisions that you had to make, you had to make in split seconds, very quickly, without having had the time of calm, mature reflection like we have now?

MR MBELO: Yes, that is right.

MR BOOYENS: And there you have related to us a very unfortunate incident in which you were yourself involved, which you shot a man which you really should not have not shot. That is why you are applying for amnesty, not so?

MR MBELO: That is why I am applying for amnesty, yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: Now, today we can all speak openly and honestly about these things, but in those days one could not speak honestly and openly about those things, because you would get into trouble, not so?

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And without going into the technicalities of it, if you had reported something like this, that you have done something like this to your seniors officers, chances are that you would have been charged for murder, not so?

MR MBELO: I do not know, Sir, maybe.

MR BOOYENS: I say chances are that you would have been charged for murder, because, let us fact it, what you did was not a self defence situation or something like that, I am talking about the man that you shot. Is that correct?

MR MBELO: It is correct. I told Sergeant Bellingan at that time that this guy wanted to give himself over and one of those Sergeants, Riot Squad, told me to shoot him.

MR BOOYENS: You never made, did you ever make any mention of it, that you told Sergeant Bellingan this in either your application?

MR MBELO: No, I did not mention it in my applications.

MR BOOYENS: Why not?

MR MBELO: It slipped my mind when I was busy drafting the application.

MR BOOYENS: Because you see, Sergeant Bellingan said, and I would understand if you did not, because you knew you did something wrong, that you did not mention this factor to him. Is it possible that you are mistaken about the fact that you mentioned it to him?

MR MBELO: I am not mistaken, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: Did you make any other mistakes in your application or at the time when you gave evidence in terms of Section 29?

MR MBELO: No, Sir. What I said was what was in my heart.

MR BOOYENS: You remember, you know what I talk about if I talk about the Section 29 application? That is when you were questioned by Mr Koisan and Mr Potgieter and I do not know who else.

MR MBELO: I am aware of that one, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: Was your intention to speak the truth there?

MR MBELO: It was my intention, like it is even today.

MR BOOYENS: So, you told no deliberate lies and misled nobody deliberately?

MR MBELO: I tell nobody lies and I am not doing what you say I am trying to do, Sir. I am straight forward and I want to keep it that way.

MR BOOYENS: You gave your evidence at that hearing in what language?

MR MBELO: I gave that hearing in Setswana.

MR BOOYENS: And was it translated into English?

MR MBELO: Yes, Mr Chairman, it was translated into English.

MR BOOYENS: Were you satisfied with the translation?

MR MBELO: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: If there were wrong translations you would have objected and said, well, that is not ...

MR MBELO: I would have objected, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: Would you page, please turn to page 334 of the record.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go onto that, how was it translated? As it is being today or was there an interpreter speaking loudly that everybody could hear?

MR MBELO: There was an interpreter, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: There is a question asked of you by Mr Koisan,

and your answer,

You said that?

MR MBELO: This one which is right here, which is written here, I talked about men, but never said two corpses.

MR BOOYENS: Answer the question.

MR MBELO: I might have said this one, yes, Sir. They must have misinterpreted me when they interpreted this words which are written on this paper.

MR BOOYENS: So, are, well, Koisan asked you the question, did Balletjies shoot him in the vehicle? You did not say, just say, yes or no, but you gave a full answer according to this. Are you now saying that that is a misinterpretation?

MR MBELO: No.

MR BOOYENS: Well, what are you saying?

MR MBELO: What I am saying, Sir, Mr Chairman, is I answer to the question which Mr Koisan asked me about the man who was shot by the vehicle.

MR BOOYENS: The question was - leave that alone - the question was,

So, it is not a case of misunderstanding the question, it is a very clear answer. Why did you say that?

MR MBELO: Sir, I was confused when I made this 29 application of mine. So, by, at my affidavit I was more relaxed.

MR BOOYENS: So, you do admit that there you made certain mistakes under oath?

MR MBELO: I, yes, I see I made certain mistakes, yes, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: Because just the previous sentence,

You have read that, you have already referred to that answer. You have said that as well.

MR MBELO: Mr Chairman, I do not think I have signed this Section 29 hearing of mine.

MR BOOYENS: Please, Mr Mbelo, let us not try and get clever. This is an official record of official proceedings where it is recorded that you have taken the oath. It is not necessary for you to sign it. It is like court proceedings. So, please, let us not get clever, just answer the question.

MR MBELO: Repeat your question again.

MR BOOYENS: Explain your answer, the, just the previous answer,

What did (...indistinct).

MR MBELO: I was confused here, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: So, another confusion. Why were you confused? I do not think you were treated too, with too much hostility by these people, from what I can read.

MR MBELO: I was not treated by hostility by the people who asked me, but I was confused.

MR BOOYENS: I can show you further instances where you actually repeated this allegation that Bellingan shot the one man inside the Kombi. At page 346, Mr Potgieter, right at the bottom of the page.

So, it is not only an instance of being confused. Once the, of repeating a patently untrue statement. Why?

MR MBELO: Sir, I made a mistake that one. It could have been a big mistake which I made there, but after visiting the scene with Mr Williams, when we were doing the affidavit, I recalled everything on the scene.

MR BOOYENS: So, are you really saying that before you visited the scene you were not certain as to what happened there. It is only once you visited the scene that you recalled exactly what happened?

MR MBELO: Yes, about the man in the Kombi or next to the Kombi.

MR BOOYENS: So, prior to that, in other words, you were uncertain as to whether the man was shot inside the Kombi, next to the Kombi or where. It is only once you visited the scene that this came back to you?

MR MBELO: That is positive.

MR BOOYENS: Well, so, I just want to make sure. So, an incident like this, you were prepared to testify under oath about something that you could not remember and painting a very bad picture about Mr Bellingan, knowing full well that you could not remember it at the time of the Section 29 hearing? Why, Mr Mbelo?

MR MBELO: I have already admitted my mistake which I did that time and I was confused.

MR BOOYENS: No, but you have now also told us that by, at the time of the 29 you could not remember. Why not just say to them when they asked you about that, look, I cannot remember where Bellingan shot the man. Now you go and paint the worst possible picture of him. Why did you do that?

MR MBELO: Sir, it is like I said. I do not know why I did it, but it happened.

MR BOOYENS: At the stage when gave your evidence in summons of Section 29 did you know Mr Bellingan was applying for amnesty?

MR MBELO: I did not know.

MR BOOYENS: Now, let us go to this all, this memory of yours that seems to have something that you just remembered at the scene. Mr Mbelo, you had to recall, when did you and Mr Williams visit the scene? Shortly before you did your application, obviously, I am not sure when that was. Some time last year, I presume.

MR MBELO: It was during this year before I made my affidavit.

MR BOOYENS: And this is the first time when you remembered again under what circumstances you saw Mr Bellingan shooting the deceased. Is that correct?

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now, ... (intervention).

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Booyens, may I interrupt. If you put page, page to page 352, he seems to give a different version. There he says that he saw Mr Bellingan shooting this person, dragging this person outside the Kombi, I suppose, and shooting this person outside. Did you see page 352, right on top?

MR BOOYENS: I was going to get to that. At hundred, 103, but also, maybe, I will deal with the other one just now.

Well, if you did not remember this, how is it that and what does this mean,

Now, who is the "they who explained"?

MR MBELO: Can I first read the question which was put to me first?

MR BOOYENS: Well, I think you better first read the sentence, then I will put the question. Have you read it?

JUDGE MILLER: It is at the very top of page 352, first line.

MR BOOYENS: Now, ... (intervention).

MR MBELO: Mr Chairman, with due respect, this Section 29 of mine, I never read it. It is the first time I see it in front of me.

MR BOOYENS: It is not what you read, it is what you said we are interested in. Answer the question.

Why did you say, "as they explained"?

MR MBELO: I do not know, I think I might, I was trying to say "I", as I explain how Bellingan shot the person.

MR BOOYENS: But that is nonsensical. I, as I tried to explained as to how Bellingan shot this person. He took this person, that is nonsense. Nobody would answer a question like that. What this sentence say, I think, as a reasonable interpretation of it is, it says to me that you do not know how Bellingan shot this person, somebody else explained it to you and what they explained to you is that he dragged the person outside and shot him. That is what I read in this. Now, tell me what is wrong with that interpretation?

MR MBELO: No, nobody telled me how Bellingan shot the person.

MR BOOYENS: You see, if you would be so kind to turn to page 105, 354 of the record, line 18, here we have got yet a different story. Read the question by Ms Barens and then you read your answer and then you can try and explain it to us.

MR MBELO: I still say the man was in the Kombi, that is what I was trying to say and he was dragged outside and while he was dragged, he was shot.

So, that seems to be another version. In, two versions in one sentence. What was going on here?

MR MBELO: When I was demonstrating, I was demonstrating how the man was pulled. I was not demonstrating how the man was found in the Kombi.

MR BOOYENS: Look, isn't the true position, Mr Mbelo, and I think everybody will understand it, if you say to us at the stage when the incident involving Mr Bellingan happened, you yourself were under fire, not so?

MR MBELO: I was under fire before even Mr Bellingan shot the person he shot.

MR BOOYENS: Yes and it is quite natural that if you are under fire, you would be far more interested to see who is shooting at you and getting out of the way than you would be in what somebody else is doing, because your own life is in danger, not so?

MR MBELO: That is what I did, but the person was shooting at me. I have already left him behind, because my car was in the front. He was already on the ground, the person who shot at my car.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, but there was still some other shooting going on as well, not so?

MR MBELO: Yes, there were some other shootings going on in the bushes on my left-hand side.

MR BOOYENS: And you did not know whether those people in the bush were shooting at you or shooting at anybody else, not so?

MR MBELO: No, I did not know.

MR BOOYENS: So, that must have worried you? Is that correct?

MR MBELO: That is correct. That is what I said. I was not excited, but I was afraid that time.

MR BOOYENS: Now, the person ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, has he got the ...

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Has he got the plan there? (end of tape 3A).

Have you seen this plan before?

MR MBELO: Yes, Mr Chairman, I saw it before.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, J is the vehicle you were in, is it not?

MR MBELO: That is right, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were now looking at Mr Bellingan, where was he?

MR MBELO: When I saw Mr Bellingan he was next to the Kombi marked A.

CHAIRPERSON: He was next to the Kombi marked A. So, where was the shooting from your left coming from?

MR MBELO: The shooting from my left was coming from the bushes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you show them on the plan?

MR MBELO: The sound was coming from the bushes marked TSOP somewhere there, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you

MR BOOYENS: And the person who was shooting, had been shooting at you, we know had been approximately in the vicinity of D and E. Is that correct?

MR MBELO: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: So, when he shot at you, you obviously took cover behind the Kombi, in other words, away from it?

MR MBELO: I did not took cover behind the Kombi or I was inside the Kombi, I was still driving towards the intersection on, the man was shooting at me.

MR BOOYENS: Right and when there was, now, at the stage when Mr Bellingan shot the man, were you outside the Kombi and was the shooting coming from your left-hand side?

MR MBELO: Yes, when I was outside the Kombi, I heard some gunshots in the bushes.

MR BOOYENS: As you said, on your left-hand side?

MR MBELO: That is right.

MR BOOYENS: Now, where were you then in relation to your own Kombi?

MR MBELO: I was outside next to my Kombi.

MR BOOYENS: Which side?

MR MBELO: On the passenger side, because my front, my drivers door did not open or did not want to open, because they shot it, they shot the ... (intervention).

MR BOOYENS: The door handle off.

MR MBELO: ... door handle was off.

MR BOOYENS: So, you were, in other words, and you showed us yesterday at the inspection where you parked, you were on the passenger side of your Kombi between the side of the road and the Kombi. Is that right?

MR MBELO: That is right.

MR BOOYENS: And that is when the incident with Bellingan happened at the other Kombi?

MR MBELO: That is right.

MR BOOYENS: And at the same time the shooting was coming from your left?

MR MBELO: There was a lot of shooting, yes.

MR BOOYENS: Shooting coming from your left at the bushes at T, S and R you said. You want to change that?

MR MBELO: No, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: Now, if that is the case, you would have had your back turned to Bellingan, how could you see what he was doing?

MR MBELO: No, there was no danger from my side, because there were some policemen. When I face that side there were a lot of policemen, so it seems as if they were shooting in the bushes, not to my side.

MR BOOYENS: You are changing your story, Mr Mbelo, and even if there was no shooting, if your left-hand side was in the direction of T, S and R, even with not a shot being fired, Bellingan would still be behind your back.

MR MBELO: No, Sir, because there is a stage when I moved around, because this Kombi just arrived when I wanted to look, then I said this is the Kombi, I thought to myself, this is the Kombi which they said we had to look for. That is when I came to the back of my Kombi, that is when I saw Mr Bellingan to that, next to that Kombi.

MR BOOYENS: Okay, so now we have got you moving to the back of your Kombi. Where at the back of your Kombi?

MR MBELO: Right behind it, Sir, on the left-hand.

MR BOOYENS: Now, this was the Kombi that was supposing to be carrying the terrorists, as you believed at that stage?

MR MBELO: That is right.

MR BOOYENS: And you moved openly towards this Kombi instead of taking cover behind your vehicle, this dangerous people that may be heavily armed?

MR MBELO: I took, I may, I went that way, because there was no shooting coming from that side, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: It could start again. Here the Kombi was arriving.

MR MBELO: I was not in a position to think that they will try anything, because we were too much, too many of us there. The firepower was too much there.

MR BOOYENS: Well, they were trying something, they were shooting at you with AK47's, they were throwing hand grenades, they were trying something, there was shooting coming from the bush and you did not know whether it was police fire. There was shooting, they were trying something, not so?

MR MBELO: It is so, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: So, in other words, the line that they were not trying anything we can ignore, that is not a good one. Let us try another one.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we try another one, you said you did not think they would try anything, because there were too many of us, the firepower was too strong. How many of you were there?

MR MBELO: Mr Chairman, before I went to NY1 I dropped one of the Riot Squad members on, at the corner of NY1 and the street which came behind Dairy Belle Hostels and on the right-hand side, from the eastern side there were some of our policemen also there.

ADV MOTATA: May I just ask this, that what my brother wants to know that, can you give us an indication in respect of numbers. You just say there were many of you, in respect of numbers. We know, at least, you have mentioned one and there were some on the eastern side, but can you indicate a number?

MR MBELO: I am not sure about the number, how many we were at the intersection itself, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Now, Mr Mbelo, very well, you now say you came and stood behind your Kombi. What did you do when you saw this Kombi in which the perceived terrorists were travelling? What did you do?

MR MBELO: I did nothing, because I saw my colleague, Mr Bellingan, was already next to the Kombi and busy pulling someone outside the Kombi.

MR BOOYENS: So, you did not see where Mr Bellingan came from?

MR MBELO: No, I just saw him going towards the Kombi from the eastern side.

MR BOOYENS: Was that immediately, did he arrive at the same time that the Kombi stopped or what is the position?

MR MBELO: No, the Kombi stopped before he even arrived to the Kombi himself.

MR BOOYENS: And you say he pulled somebody out of the Kombi?

MR MBELO: That is right, that is what I saw.

MR BOOYENS: From where in the Kombi?

MR MBELO: From the sliding door, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: So, Bellingan opened the sliding door and pulled a man out?

MR MBELO: I did not see him opening the sliding door, but I saw him pulling the man out of the sliding door.

MR BOOYENS: Very well, the sliding door opened, Bellingan pulled him out. How?

MR MBELO: I say I did not see him opening the sliding door.

MR BOOYENS: I am not asking you that, how did he pull him out?

MR MBELO: He hold him by his ... (intervention).

MR BOOYENS: You indicate by his throat?

MR MBELO: That is, no, by his ... (intervention).

MR BOOYENS: Chest?

MR MBELO: ... clothings.

MR BOOYENS: Clothing in front of his ... (intervention).

MR MBELO: That is right.

MR BOOYENS: ... throat? Very well and was he pulling him towards, the person towards him?

MR MBELO: He was pulling him away, not towards him as such. He was standing like pulling a person like this, to the other side, pulling, like pulling him to the front.

MR BOOYENS: Yes and what ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: He indicated was pulling someone across the front of him ... (intervention).

MR BOOYENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ... self.

MR BOOYENS: Yes and what happened then?

MR MBELO: Then when he was doing that I heard a shot, I saw him shooting the man.

MR BOOYENS: Okay, now wait a bit.

Look, it is not necessary to switch this off any more, we are now on the same circuit, okay.

Now, so, at some stage when he was pulling the man of, in front of him you heard shot?

MR MBELO: That is right, no, I saw him shooting him.

MR BOOYENS: You, now you saw him shooting him?

MR MBELO: I heard the second shot, that second shot I did not see, I hear it.

MR BOOYENS: Why did you not see the second shot?

MR MBELO: No, I was now concentrating, because there was more firepower coming from the other end of the roads in the bushes.

MR BOOYENS: So, you saw the first shot?

MR MBELO: That is right.

MR BOOYENS: He must have, virtually have, I do not understand. So, the man was on his feet when he shot him the first time?

MR MBELO: That is right. That is when he grabbed him. It was like grab and shoot.

MR BOOYENS: So, grab and shoot more or less in the same movement?

MR MBELO: That is right.

MR BOOYENS: And where in relation to Mr Bellingan was the deceased at that stage when the first shot went off?

MR MBELO: Repeat your question.

MR BOOYENS: Okay, I think he has grabbed him, he is pulling him out of the Kombi. Now, at what, and then he shot him. Had he pulled him passed in front of him already when he shot him or was he still pulling him towards him when he shot him? That is what I want to know?

MR MBELO: He was pulling towards him when he shot him.

MR BOOYENS: So, he had ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Could you demonstrate with somebody?

MR BOOYENS: Try your attorney, he is getting paid for this.

DEMONSTRATION OF PULLING:

MS KHAMPEPE: Can you please just repeat, because we did not see it, probably be a little slower.

DEMONSTRATION OF PULLING:

CHAIRPERSON: He grabbed him with his left hand by the collar and pulled him across the front of himself. So, he went past his right shoulder.

MR BOOYENS: Yes and another part of the demonstration that I noticed is that the first time it was indicated that the gun was pushed against his neck and the second time, I think, against the chest somewhere.

MS KHAMPEPE: That is what I wanted to find out, Mr.

MR BOOYENS: Yes.

MS KHAMPEPE: If that is what happened. Is that what you have just demonstrated, what you saw happening?

MR MBELO: That is what I saw happening, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: So, with the gun pointed at the front upper part of his body, and I know you cannot be dogmatic about it, the first shot was fired?

MR MBELO: You see, I am not really, really sure where he pointed the gun, but that, at that stage that is when the first shot went off.

MR BOOYENS: But they were face to face, not so, virtually, on what you demonstrated?

MR MBELO: They were, they looked like they were face to face, but the moment he started to pull him, the man was no more face to face with him, he was passing him, going to the ground.

MR BOOYENS: Well, you saw when the shot was fired you told us?

MR MBELO: That is right.

MR BOOYENS: So, he was pulling and I suggest to you what you demonstrated as he pulled the man and he was still pulling it past in front of him and he had the gun in his right hand, that would have meant he would have shot him from the front. Is that right?

MR MBELO: That is right.

MR BOOYENS: Well, Mr Bellingan is being criticised, because his explanation does not fit in with the post mortem, but neither does yours. What do you say about that?

MR MBELO: Like I said, I did not see where he shot him for the first shot or even the second shot.

MR BOOYENS: No, both shots, if I understand the post mortem are above the ear and in the occipital region, in other words towards the, behind the ear, the back of the head. Now, on your demonstration that would have been an extremely awkward position for Mr Bellingan to shoot him in, on the first shot.

MR MBELO: I do not, like I say, I did not see where he pointed his gun the first shot when he shot him.

MR BOOYENS: But you told us you saw when he ... (intervention).

MR MBELO: I saw him pulling the man and shooting the man, but I did not see the direction of his firearm in the body of the man.

MR BOOYENS: So, your demonstration of just now where you had the gun pointed at the front of his, upper part of his body was not correct?

MR MBELO: It looked like, the demonstration I was doing, when it happened that day it looked like that.

MR BOOYENS: Well, then, if it looked like that, then it must have happened like that or are you, perhaps, saying that maybe my observations are not accurate?

MR MBELO: Not that way, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: Well, then, if it looked like that, then you are telling us what you saw?

MR MBELO: Yes, that is what I saw.

MR BOOYENS: And what you saw is Bellingan pulling him towards him and, as you indicated in your demonstration, with the firearm towards the front upper part of his body. Is that correct?

MR MBELO: That is what I demonstrated right now, Sir, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And that is when the shot went off?

MR MBELO: It is at that point when the shot went off.

MR BOOYENS: Right, then the bullet must have hit him in the front upper part of the body. As I understand the post mortem, there is no entry wound in the front upper part of the body, the wounds are in the head.

MR MBELO: I cannot explain that one, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: Yes. You see, Mr Mbelo, I think, in all fairness to you, you have been trying to explain things and I can understand why, because you do not want to be accused of not making a full disclosure, because you realise it is important, not so? Is that correct?

MR MBELO: That is not ... (intervention).

MR BOOYENS: You must tell the full story, is that right?

MR MBELO: That is not correct, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: No, in terms to get amnesty, you must tell the full story. Is that correct?

MR MBELO: That is a requirement of ... (intervention).

MR BOOYENS: Yes.

MR MBELO: ... what I have heard from my lawyer, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: And ... (intervention).

MR MBELO: The full story, the full of what happened.

MR BOOYENS: What I want to suggest to you, Mr Mbelo, is that in the circumstances there, and I am not saying that you are lying deliberately, but you are reconstructing what you think what happened there. Things happened so fast there, in fact, different things might have happened. Things might have happened slightly different and you might think, from the angle at you, which you were watching, that Bellingan was pulling the man out, not so?

MR MBELO: It might be so, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: That is right. In fact, standing at the back of your, of the Kombi and with the Kombi where the man came from, standing at a slight angle, you would not, could not have had a 100% clear view of what happened between Mr Bellingan and the deceased, not so?

MR MBELO: But, at first I had 100% view of him, before I moved from that position to the man I shot.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, we will deal with that later, but the point is, what I am suggesting to you, that in that high stress situation, it is quite conceivable that what you saw was a man getting out of the vehicle quite quickly, not being pulled by Bellingan, and that Bellingan shot him in those circumstances. In other words, that the pulling or the dragging never took place. Is it possible that that is what happened?

MR MBELO: It may be possible.

MR BOOYENS: And it may also be possible, then, that this man lifted his hand with something in it, which you did not see, because, remember, Mr Mbelo, this was a high stress situation, not so?

MR MBELO: It is so.

MR BOOYENS: So, in fact, are you really saying to His Lordship, that it is, it will be dangerous to rely on what you said at the 29 about a man being shot inside the vehicle or being dragged out of the vehicle, that really you are not quite certain what the circumstances were when Bellingan shot him? He might have shot him even in the circumstances that he described in his evidence. Is that correct?

MR MBELO: Can say is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now, dealing with the statement that you said Mr Bellingan changed for you. Mr Bellingan, the statement you made, Mr Bellingan, as you heard, said that he rewrote the statement and he got you to sign it. That is, indeed, correct.

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You trusted Mr Bellingan at that stage?

MR MBELO: Yip, we were colleagues.

MR BOOYENS: Trusted him enough not to read the statement before you signed it?

MR MBELO: Yip.

MR BOOYENS: So, you did not read the statement before you signed it?

MR MBELO: I read it.

MR BOOYENS: Were you satisfied with it?

MR MBELO: I was.

MR BOOYENS: Was ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Were or were not?

MR MBELO: I was.

MR BOOYENS: You did not query anything in it?

MR MBELO: No.

MR BOOYENS: It was written in better, what was the language made in, Afrikaans or English, I cannot remember?

MR MBELO: It was in Afrikaans.

MR BOOYENS: It was written in better Afrikaans than yours?

Is that correct? Okay, let us not quarrel about that one. Maybe in Mr Bellingan's view it was written in better Afrikaans, maybe in your view it was written in worse Afrikaans, but be that as it may, Mr Bellingan said that what he really did is he just, he did not change the gist of the statement, he changed it linguistically around and maybe a few things so that they made better sense, because he was an experienced policeman as far as that is concerned. Now, you said, you told me already that you were satisfied with the statement, so would you agree with what, what Mr Bellingan told us there?

MR MBELO: Yes, at that time I had to agree with what he wrote there, because it was for the purpose of the Weaver Trial ... (intervention).

MR BOOYENS: Yes.

MR MBELO: ... at that time.

MR BOOYENS: Well, and you were not going to disclose this fact that you shot this man down, because that was going to mean trouble to you, not so?

MR MBELO: It was going to mean trouble to all the people who took part in the ... (intervention).

MR BOOYENS: No.

MR MBELO: ... shooting of the Guguletu.

MR BOOYENS: No.

MR MBELO: Not only me.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, exactly, but even more to you and that unknown Riot Unit policeman who told you to shoot this man down in cold blood.

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now, Mr Mbelo, there was, apparently or maybe, I do not know, some incident where a man was down on the tar and somebody shot him when he was down from behind. I say maybe there was such an incident. Now, this man that you shot, was he in the road at some stage when this Riot Unit policeman shot him?

MR MBELO: No, he was not on the road or on the tar itself, he was on the pavement.

MR BOOYENS: Right next to the vehicle?

MR MBELO: No.

MR BOOYENS: Where?

MR MBELO: Further up from the vehicle.

MR BOOYENS: If you say on the ... (intervention).

MR MBELO: From the western, to the western side of the vehicle.

MR BOOYENS: To the western side of the vehicle. Did you see this bus with the children in there?

MR MBELO: I noticed it.

MR BOOYENS: At what stage?

MR MBELO: The time we finished shooting this man, the bush was already there, standing with the children inside.

MR BOOYENS: So, when you had finished this man, the bus was there. Now, if you, let us just make sure who this man is. Is this the man that you had shot?

MR MBELO: That is right.

MR BOOYENS: And was your man shot before Bellingan shot his or after?

MR MBELO: Mine was shot after.

MR BOOYENS: Right. So, when the incident involving Mr Bellingan took place, the bus was not there yet?

MR MBELO: You see, after witnessing what Mr Bellingan did I went, is when I went, where I was aware of the man who was coming holding his hands up. That is when I went to the man.

MR BOOYENS: Yes. No, I understand that. I am talking about the presence of the bus with the children.

MR MBELO: You see, the presence of the bus I am not, I do not know when it arrived. I just saw it standing there, because someone was shouting keep the bus with the children away, these are police actions.

MR BOOYENS: And was that shouting after you shot the man?

MR MBELO: That is right.

MR BOOYENS: So, when you were standing behind the Kombi at one stage, you were unaware of the bus. Is that right?

MR MBELO: The bus was not there at that time.

MR BOOYENS: Okay. So, when you were standing behind the Kombi and that is the stage when the incident between, the Bellingan incident, let us call it that for lack of a better word, occurred, the bus was not there yet. Is that right?

MR MBELO: It might be.

MR BOOYENS: Well, you have said just now the bus was not there. Now you say ... (intervention).

MR MBELO: That is right.

MR BOOYENS: ... it might be. So, was it not there?

MR MBELO: No, it was not there.

MR BOOYENS: It was not there. So, all the bus driver, bearing in mind that the position he pointed out is more or less just on the other side of the NY1 to where J is, motor vehicle J is, what the bus driver must have witnessed was the incident in which you were involved? Is that right or an incident that is just part of his imagination? That is the alternative.

MR MBELO: I did not see what the bus driver pointed on the inspection in loco, but that position L and K is where I shot my man.

MR BOOYENS: Yes. If the Commission would just bear with me.

Now, Mr Mbelo, if you would be so kind to just to page, turn to page 356 where, and I am referring to line 23 about. You were referring to the AK's. Perhaps, just to get into it context, you should read from where Mr Koisan asks you some questions. Just tell me when you are finished please.

MR MBELO: I have read it.

MR BOOYENS: So, am I right that your impression was that these AK's were just dropped when these people fled?

MR MBELO: That was my impression at that time.

MR BOOYENS: And surely, as an experienced security policeman, if there were arms stashing places established beforehand, you would have expected that night with the planning session, that you would have been told they are stashing their arms at that point, at that point and at that point and you and you watch that, you and you watch that and you and you watch that. Surely that is the way it would have been done, not so?

MR MBELO: It would have been done if it was so.

MR BOOYENS: Yes and there was no talk about, the police had no prior knowledge where the arms were going to be stashed. Is that correct?

MR MBELO: I myself did not know, have any knowledge about that.

MR BOOYENS: Well, if they had that knowledge surely they would have shared that knowledge, not so, with the people who were going to deal with the attack?

MR MBELO: They would have, yes, if they had.

MR BOOYENS: If the Commission would just bear with me, Mr Chairman.

Perhaps if you would just be so kind to turn to page 362. Mr Chairman, referring to line four and just read your answer there, I would just like to ask you a question about that.

you see that?

Can you just, perhaps, in light of what you said earlier on that Mr Bellingan was actually the man taking charge, but here you say Liebenberg was in charge. Can you just explain that to me please?

MR MBELO: I said here Liebenberg was the Commander of the Security Branch, of this local security branch here. So, he had some, a problem with people in Crossroad, so that is why I say if I was in his shoes, I could have been happy of what happened that day, because he had some problem of getting rid to the people who are giving him problem.

MR BOOYENS: And, but you also say,

So, in your view Mr Liebenberg was involved all the time., Is that correct?

MR MBELO: That is correct. He was liaising with Mr Bellingan.

MR BOOYENS: Yes. As a policeman ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before you go on from that page, just a few lines down what you say there at line 13,

Is this Mr Liebenberg you are talking about there?

MR MBELO: That is right, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: So, Mr Liebenberg identified some of the bodies as people he knew?

MR MBELO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. Mr Liebenberg identified some of the bodies as people he knew?

MR MBELO: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: Where and when was that?

MR MBELO: That was after the shooting.

MR BOOYENS: Which bodies did he identify?

MR MBELO: I cannot remember who and who did he identify.

MR BOOYENS: How many did he identify?

MR MBELO: I cannot remember the exact number.

MR BOOYENS: Could it have been one only, more than one?

MR MBELO: I am not sure.

MR BOOYENS: So, you are not certain whether it was only one person that he identified?

MR MBELO: I am not so, I am not certain, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: Could it even have been that he did not identify any body?

MR MBELO: No, he did identify, because he was the local Commander of the MK structures here. His desk was working with infiltrators, he had his own suspects, he wanted to arrest them, he wanted them so badly. So, that is why he was there in from the beginning of the planning up to the end.

MR BOOYENS: So, you say he wanted to arrest them badly?

MR MBELO: He wanted them.

MR BOOYENS: And are you saying that he must have identified the bodies, because you would have expected him as the man in charge of the Security Branch, Anti-Terrorist Desk to know who they are?

MR MBELO: They were his suspects. He had to know, you had to know your suspects.

MR BOOYENS: Yes. You are assuming that he had known these suspects and would have been able to identify them?

MR MBELO: He identified them as people he knew.

MR BOOYENS: No, he identified maybe one of them as a person he knew, according to you.

MR MBELO: That is why I said, Mr Chairman, I am not quite sure how many bodies or how many people he identified.

MR BOOYENS: By the way, while we are talking about it, did you also identify some of the bodies?

MR MBELO: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Subsequently at the morgue? Is that correct?

MR MBELO: No.

MR BOOYENS: There?

MR MBELO: On the scene.

MR BOOYENS: Okay. Did you identify all of them?

MR MBELO: Not all of them.

MR BOOYENS: How many did you identify?

MR MBELO: I identified two.

MR BOOYENS: These two that you identified were they people that were involved in this group of people that you met earlier on when you infiltrated?

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Subsequently, you were not involved in identification again?

MR MBELO: No, because I did not know the rest of the other people.

MR BOOYENS: Can you remember which two you identified?

MR MBELO: Yes, I remember I identified Jabu and Chris.

MR BOOYENS: Okay, sorry, they were shot where? I think, I have only got the surnames here. So, ...

CHAIRPERSON: Chris was ... (intervention).

MR MBELO: ED.

CHAIRPERSON: Jabu ...

MR MBELO: C, B.

MR BOOYENS: At CB and Chris was at DE, thank you.

If the Commission would just bear with me, Mr Chairman.

Would it be, there is, a lot of questions has been asked about the possibility to arrest people and so on. Did you work in Crossroads, KTC on occasion, infiltrations?

MR MBELO: I just went, no, not KTC. I just went once, that is when I went to this group.

MR BOOYENS: I see, but when you went in with the policeman, in other words, went in as a policeman, not as an infiltration, did you ever go with Mr Bellingan ... (intervention).

MR MBELO: No.

MR BOOYENS: ... and company.

MR MBELO: I have never went with them inside the townships. They were doing it with these local Murder and Robbery Unit guys and the local security guy. We were not even meeting the local police people ... (intervention).

MR BOOYENS: I see.

MR MBELO: ... because we were working underground.

MR BOOYENS: Okay, oh, so you were undercover agents?

MR MBELO: That is right.

MR BOOYENS: But, to your knowledge, attempts were made to go into these areas to arrest people and so on. Is that correct?

MR MBELO: I was never told about such attempts. I do not know anything about them.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have got no further questions.

MR HUGO: We have no questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Williams.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR B WILLIAMS:

MR B WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Mbelo, just to deal with one of the last questions raised by my colleague first. The question of the, where the arms would be stashed and the question of whether or not the police had any prior knowledge of this. You do not have any prior knowledge of that?

MR MBELO: I do not have any prior knowledge of the arms or where they could have been stashed.

MR B WILLIAMS: Is it correct that the arms which had been found were found in a position relative to where Captain Bellingan and Sergeant Grobbelaar were, in fact, in NY3?

MR MBELO: Yes, according to the inspection in loco it was, the case is just like that.

MR B WILLIAMS: And the arms stashed as they were, those were the only stashed arms that were found?

MR MBELO: It was the only stashed arms.

MR B WILLIAMS: I want to deal now, I will come back to those issues again, I want to deal specifically with your application and, perhaps, you can help the Committee by saying what it was that motivated you to join the police in the first instance.

MR MBELO: I joined the police in 1981, since in 1980 there were some unrests at our high school or at our place. So, my mum was work, was a domestic worker working for White people, so I had, I needed some income, so I scouted for work. I applied for many firms, the police were the only people who answered my application before the rest could have answered.

MR B WILLIAMS: I see and you say that at the time that you were at school, specifically in 1980, there was unrest in the area where you went to school?

MR MBELO: That is positive.

MR B WILLIAMS: Were you, at that stage, aware of the suppression of that unrest by the police inflicted upon school pupils?

MR MBELO: At that stage I was not aware of any politics or I was not politically inclined or political minded, because I came from a small place where my family does not believe in politics, because I did not have a father, only my mother, alone self, politics were never discussed at home.

MR B WILLIAMS: Is there any particular reason why you decided to join the Security Police at such an early stage in your career?

MR MBELO: The particular reason is for me, was to earn money and to help my mum, because my mum is a person who is an asthma, she is an asthma patient.

MR B WILLIAMS: Was joining the Security Police going to involve you earning more money?

MR MBELO: No, joining the Security Police was not going to give me more money, because at that stage I did not know the works of the Security Police even at, Hammanskraal I just heard that Security Police are just, they are people who go along with their own, they go to work with police cars and they do not have to wear uniforms and they are always in private.

MR B WILLIAMS: I come back to my prior question, then, what is the reason for you joining the Security Police? Why not then join the ordinary police?

MR MBELO: I cannot say, I joined the Security Police, because I thought it as a challenge, because for my, since I joined the police force in 1981, March, up to November, I was doing actually charge office work, so I wanted to change or try to work at another space and when I was recruited I did not know where I was being taken to. I thought that I was going to work at police headquarters in Pretoria. That is why I joined it in Hammanskraal.

MR B WILLIAMS: And do I understand you to be saying now that you were not actually aware that you were going to be joining the Security Police?

MR MBELO: No, I mean I was not aware that I was going to join Vlakplaas. I thought that I was going to join headquarters, Security Branch.

MR B WILLIAMS: In the first year that you joined Vlakplaas, can you give the Committee some sort of indication of the kind of things that you did there?

MR MBELO: In my first year there was nothing, actually, going on, because we were new recruits, we had to be taught the trade of the job. So, most of the things which we did, we were guarding the farm while the other guys are going out. Even before my first assignment to go and patrol the Western Transvaal Border.

MR B WILLIAMS: Now, would you tell us a little bit about your assignment to patrol the Western Transvaal Border? What did that involve?

MR MBELO: We were patrolling the borders and we were moving around the villages. Our askaris were helping us out to point out their comrades or the people with whom they were trained with outside. That was our main task.

MR B WILLIAMS: And how soon was that after you joined, you said?

MR MBELO: I think it took about two to three months before I went out with the groups.

MR B WILLIAMS: And what were you doing once you had people pointed out to you by your askaris? What was happening to these people, would you tell the Committee?

MR MBELO: Some were being arrested, but some were not arrested, because some other guys did not want to give up. They fought and the guys, we shot back.

MR B WILLIAMS: Were you involved in any of these incidents where people were killed?

MR MBELO: I was involved in the Guguletu one, yes, but not on the border region.

MR B WILLIAMS: I will be coming to the Guguletu one in a moment. I am just dealing with the history of your position at Vlakplaas. When you were patrolling the border you say that some of the comrades, you say, would not co-operate with you, they fought and they got killed?

MR MBELO: No, I mean when we were doing those patrols, sometimes when we meet or when it happens that we meet the MK guys, if they do not, sometimes they did not just give up, they fought for their lives.

MR B WILLIAMS: Is it correct that towards the middle of the 1980's, you can tell us what your perception is, toward the middle of the 1980's one began to see increased levels of repression coming from covert sources like Vlakplaas?

MR MBELO: In the 1980's ... (intervention).

MR B WILLIAMS: The mid 1980's.

MR MBELO: The mid-eighties, things were happening, but we were not told they were, those were covert operations. The only people who knew about the covert operations were those who were taking part in it.

MR B WILLIAMS: Are you saying that you were not involved yourself, apart from the Guguletu 7, in any other covert operations in the mid-1980's?

MR MBELO: I was, I was, I had some, I did took part in a couple of them. One like the Krugersdorp abduction of ... (end of tape 3B) which I have already applied for amnesty and the other one from the Swaziland abduction of which, also, I have applied for amnesty.

MR B WILLIAMS: Is it correct that despite the fact, according to your evidence, you were not necessarily involved in all of the covert operations that were taking place at the time, were you aware that human rights abuses were occurring at Vlakplaas?

MR MBELO: I was aware.

MR B WILLIAMS: Were you aware that some of these abuses included torturing people?

MR MBELO: I was quite aware.

MR B WILLIAMS: You said in your evidence in-chief that you participated in the torture of people as well?

MR MBELO: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR B WILLIAMS: Would you tell the Committee specifically which incidents you remember being involved in torturing people?

MR MBELO: I do not remember very, quite well all the people, the victims of whom which I tortured during the years.

MR B WILLIAMS: Can you give the Committee an idea of the numbers of people that we are talking about here?

MR MBELO: If I can talk about numbers, I can talk about eight to nine.

MR B WILLIAMS: Eight to nine people whom you tortured?

MR MBELO: That is good.

MR B WILLIAMS: Did any of these people survive your torture methods?

MR MBELO: Luckily, so far, they, mine survived.

MR B WILLIAMS: Were you involved in the killing of any people and could you give the Committee, once again, the numbers involved, apart from the Guguletu 7?

MR MBELO: I was not involved in any other killing without the Guguletu killings.

MR B WILLIAMS: Now, you have said in your application and also in your evidence that you had never ever received any rewards of a financial nature. Is that correct?

MR MBELO: I mentioned that, I mentioned the money that I received, R1 000,00, after this operation of Guguletu, but previous to that, with other operations, I have never received anything, not even a medal.

MR B WILLIAMS: So, there was no financial advantage to you in pursuing the orders of your superiors?

MR MBELO: No, there was not. The only thing, I thought I was doing it for the country.

MR B WILLIAMS: Perhaps you can explain to the Committee how killing people and torturing them advanced, in your view, the or was to the benefit of the country?

MR MBELO: Well, torturing people is the most used and it was the most used method in the security establishment of obtaining evidence or of obtaining information from any suspect or suspected guerrillas and it was benefitting the security branch, because they could gather more information in a very short time.

MR B WILLIAMS: You had obviously heard of your colleagues at Vlakplaas who were involved in killing people at well?

MR MBELO: Yes, that came to my attention also.

MR B WILLIAMS: How did that advance the cause?

MR MBELO: I do not think it advanced any certain cause, so far, because all what they did, they even killed their own people to silence them, so I do not think it advanced anything.

MR B WILLIAMS: You will concede and you have readily conceded already in your evidence that the evidence that you gave at the Weaver Trial and the evidence that you had given at the inquest subsequently were incorrect, not so?

MR MBELO: They were incorrect, because nothing of the stories came out. Jimmy Mbane did not come out and the stories that people were shot with their hands up, these stories were not there. They were only led by witnesses and it was disputed from the police side.

MR B WILLIAMS: So, you readily admit that you lied to those, in those judicial proceedings for your own interests?

MR MBELO: I lied to those judiciary proceedings not for my own interest. I lied, because that was the standard practice of the farm, like the MacNalty case, the Harams Commission. They were told all lies all of them. Like Dirk Coetzee and Mufamelo wanted to talk, they said Mufamelo was lying and on and on.

MR B WILLIAMS: Yes, we are talking, sorry, carry on.

MR MBELO: I was just telling the Commission that to lie on a certain Commission was a, was something which was standard practice at the farm. Even the big guys on top were there to cover everybody. Let us take the case of Mufamelo when he tried to talk about Mxenge and MacNalty was, they lied to MacNalty, they lied to the Harams Commission.

MR B WILLIAMS: Is there any reason why the Amnesty Committee should believe you now?

MR MBELO: I mean, things like this did not get, they were not, they did not come afore at first, but now, I mean, what I am telling the Committee now is in, what they did not know that it, things like that thing did happen of what I did know. I am referring now to the Guguletu 7.

MR B WILLIAMS: Do you realise that you have much to gain by applying for amnesty now?

MR MBELO: Mr Chairman, my coming here to apply for amnesty, I do not want to gain nothing. All what I want to do is I just want the people to forgive me for what I did. I am talking especially to the families, the relatives and the friends of the victims. That is what I want to gain from them, that is all, forgiveness and reconciliation.

MR B WILLIAMS: Perhaps you can help us with your incident specifically, your contribution to the, what has been referred to as the massacre at that intersection. It does not appear anywhere from what you have said thus far, that you hesitated for a moment when you were asked to shoot that person. Can you explain that to us?

MR MBELO: I can explain to that. The guy came to me and I start from the beginning when I start to meet the guy. The man came with his hands up and the man said in Xhosa, I can take you to where the others are and there was a White Sergeant, since he was my senior and I was a Black guy, I, always you had to take orders, we even take orders from a Lance Sergeant who does not have even, who does not even have, is a Full Sergeant. So, he told me, "skiet die man", so I shot the man. Then he told me, "jy skiet kak". He took a R1, he shot the man through the stomach and I think the bullet came through here.

MR B WILLIAMS: The point is that at the time that you were told to shoot the man, in other words, the first shot that Mr Mlifie sustained, was it not apparent to you that the man was surrendering?

MR MBELO: It was apparent and I wanted also to tell, I told them this man says he can take us to where the others are, that was my intention at that time.

MR B WILLIAMS: It did not strike you as being evil to want to shoot someone who is clearly surrendering to you?

MR MBELO: At that time it was not strange, because orders were orders, you take them from above.

MR B WILLIAMS: It did not occur to you to tell this person who was giving you instruction, well shoot yourself then if you want to?

MR MBELO: No, I could not have done that.

MR B WILLIAMS: Would you explain?

MR MBELO: If they, in the old apartheid regime when they called you a very good cop, you are a cop who takes orders and achieve them without asking questions. Then you are a good cop.

MR B WILLIAMS: Did you not say that the people who were on the scene that day, or at least at the planning at Wingfield, were aware of the fact that you people came from Pretoria?

MR MBELO: Since Mr Bellingan was liaising with this, many people they knew of our existence, they knew that we are here even Captain, sorry, Lieutenant Liebenberg knew that we are here, so the people who were on the planning session that morning, everybody knew we, who we are and what is going on.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, I would just like to go back a little please. You have told us orders are orders and you are a good cop, because you obey orders.

MR MBELO: Mr Chairman, I said in the old apartheid regime, if you are, did obey orders then you are regarded as a good cop.

CHAIRPERSON: But I understood you to say earlier in your evidence that the instructions you had been given was to apprehend these people, that was what you were told at the meeting.

MR MBELO: There was talk about apprehending the people, Mr Chairman, but after and on top of those talks of apprehending the people, there were some talk of taking the people out.

CHAIRPERSON: But the senior officer had talked of apprehending?

MR MBELO: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And you now had a chance to apprehend someone who was coming to surrender to you. Why did you then follow a Sergeant's orders in the face of the orders by the Major?

MR MBELO: Mr Chairman, I followed the Sergeant's orders, because he was my immediate Commander on the scene at that time next to that person, because I relayed the message to him that the man tried, wants to show us where his other comrades are. Then the man say shoot the man, which to me, gave me the impression that they do not want to arrest anybody alive.

JUDGE MILLER: Why did you not refuse to shoot the man?

MR MBELO: At first, in the old apartheid regime, Mr Chairman, you could not refuse an order especially if they were saying here that you are dealing with the ANC or the PAC or the cadres. That could have looked like you are stabbing them at the back or you are a sell-out.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Mbelo, did you regard what the White officer said to you as an order?

MR MBELO: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: Why, I mean, you had been given specific instructions by Mr Odendal to apprehend the insurgents?

MR MBELO: Mr Chairman, I did take instructions and I did shoot the man. I was told to shoot the man, because I told him, the Sergeant who was next to me, that this man want to give himself up, then he say, no, shoot the man, then I shot the man in the head and he told me that, "ek skiet kak", then he shoot the man further.

MS KHAMPEPE: Were you not scared that by shooting this man you would now be a bad cop, because a senior officer had given you specific instructions of what to do?

MR MBELO: Mr Chairman, I was not scared that I was becoming a bad cop. I was only scared that if I do not do it himself, because there was too much shooting. I could have got shot myself also. Then they could have said I was shot by one of the guerrillas on the scene.

JUDGE MILLER: Sorry, do you know who that Sergeant was who gave you that order? Can you identify the man?

MR MBELO: Mr Chairman, even today I do not know that man, because we only met in the morning of that day when we were in Wingfield. From there when we, when they were deployed I did not meet that man again until we met when this happenings took place. I do not know that White Sergeant, Mr Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: How do you know that he is a Sergeant?

MR MBELO: Mr Chairman, he was wearing his Riot Squad unit uniform, his rank was on his, how can you, on his shoulder, Mr Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: So, you could identify by what he was wearing that he is a Sergeant?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir, I could identify his rank. That is right, Mr Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: You may proceed Mr Williams.

MR B WILLIAMS: Thank you Ms Khampepe.

Now, you say that you were following orders, that you felt you were in no position to refuse to follow that kind of order?

MR MBELO: That is so, Mr Chairman.

MR B WILLIAMS: Were you also forced to accept the R1 000,00 reward for that kill?

MR MBELO: Yes, I was not forced, I was just given it and I was also amazed, was the money, what this money is for.

MR B WILLIAMS: Did it not feel strange to you that you had killed a defenceless man and now you were given money, you just accepted the money as well?

MR MBELO: I felt strange, it felt strange, really, because it was the first time such things happen and it was not the first time that I was involved in any, in operations. I have been in many, in a couple operations. I have never been offered money, but this one I was offered money, so it was very strange for me.

MR B WILLIAMS: Look a little bit at the scene there. You say that when you arrived at that intersection, you say that Christopher Piet, whom you recognised as Christopher Piet, which is referred to as Mr E or D on the plan, was already lying on the ground. Is that correct?

MR MBELO: I said when I came down from the south, going to the crossing, that is when Chris came running and shooting and immediately when I passed him, he fell down to the ground.

MR B WILLIAMS: Do you remember having noticed Jabu Miya, the person who is lying in NY3, as having been lying there already when you arrived in the intersection?

MR MBELO: Yes, I did see Mr Jabu lying there. He was lying there already. He was shot already when I came into that intersection.

MR B WILLIAMS: So, we know that at least two of the deceased were already down at the time that you came into the intersection, not so?

MR MBELO: One was already down, the other one fell after I passed him, when I was going to the intersection.

MR B WILLIAMS: When you stopped your vehicle at the point that you refer to in the plan, J, your attention was then attracted to Sergeant Bellingan. Is that correct?

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MR B WILLIAMS: If I understand things correctly then, there were, could have been no other shooting going on in the intersection at that time. Do you agree with me?

MR MBELO: I agree with you, Mr Chairman.

MR B WILLIAMS: You will agree that whatever shooting was emanating from the or alleged shooting was emanating from Christopher Piet had to have been past, because he was already down, not so?

MR MBELO: That is right.

MR B WILLIAMS: You will agree that Jabu Miya did not have a firearm, correct?

MR MBELO: Yes, I will agree.

MR B WILLIAMS: You will recall that Jabu Miya is one of the people who was found, allegedly, with a hand grenade at his left hand, lying in NY3?

MR MBELO: In NY111, that is correct.

MR B WILLIAMS: You will also agree that the person allegedly shot by Mr Bellingan is a person who was not armed or not, did not have a firearm on him?

MR MBELO: I am aware.

MR B WILLIAMS: It would appear that at the time that you saw Mr Mlifie, who is the person that you shot, his firearm was still stuck in his pants, not so?

MR MBELO: That is what I said when I saw it when he raised his arms, that his firearm was tucked inside his belt.

MR B WILLIAMS: So, are we then correct in saying that there could not have been any other shooting emanating from the alleged deceased in the intersection at the time that you pull up there?

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MR B WILLIAMS: You mention the fact that you hear shots, but you say quite specifically that those shots came from the bushes that are marked in the diagrams, marked RSQP?

MR MBELO: Correct.

MR B WILLIAMS: And other than that shooting that was going on there, there was no other shooting in the intersection?

MR MBELO: No.

MR B WILLIAMS: Your attention is then attracted to the only other shots which can be going off at that point and that is the shooting of Mr Konile, not so?

MR MBELO: That is positive.

MR B WILLIAMS: You say that you saw the first shot that was fired at Mr Konile, not so?

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MR B WILLIAMS: You have been asked questions about this by the council for Captain Bellingan, you showed the Committee a motion in terms of which you were pulling the person past your body and you indicated that that was the motion that had been done by Captain Bellingan in respect of Mr Konile. Am I correct?

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MR B WILLIAMS: Am I correct in saying that the motion that you showed reflects the right profile of Mr Konile being pulled past Captain Bellingan?

MR MBELO: That is right.

MR B WILLIAMS: Am I correct in saying, then, that the possibility that Mr Bellingan, in fact, fired the first shot in the right-hand side of Mr Konile's head is perfectly plausible then?

MR MBELO: It is.

MR B WILLIAMS: You say you never saw the second shot?

MR MBELO: No.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it should also be recorded, I should have recorded it at the time, that the gentleman with whom he demonstrated was an extremely large, well built man.

MR B WILLIAMS: I am indebted to you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Because I think during the course of his evidence, going to clear this up, but you can, perhaps, explore it now, he said he pulled him and he pulled him down.

MR B WILLIAMS: Thank you very much Mr Chairperson.

So, from what you are saying, then, it is perfectly plausible that, at least, the first shot went into the right side of Mr Konile's head above the ear? It is plausible from what you say, you will agree?

MR MBELO: I will not deny it.

MR B WILLIAMS: You saw that happening?

MR MBELO: Yes, I saw it the way I demonstrated for the Committee.

MR B WILLIAMS: Now, did you see this person falling on the floor?

MR MBELO: No, the time he fell, I did not see when he fell on the floor or on the ground.

MR B WILLIAMS: The second shot that you heard being fired, are you convinced that it sounded as loud and in the same proximity as the first shot that you heard fired?

MR MBELO: It was on the same place, same direction.

MR B WILLIAMS: Is that why you say that it sounded like it came from Mr Bellingan as well?

MR MBELO: That is right.

MR B WILLIAMS: Now, having dealt with the third deceased who was found in that area, we have already, we know that Jabu Miya is already lying on the ground, we know that Christopher Piet is already out of action with his AK47, we now know that Konile is not going to do anything further, he is lying in the intersection. What other shooting is going on in the intersection, Mr Mbelo?

MR MBELO: Does Mr Williams ask about the man I shot?

MR B WILLIAMS: No, I am asking what shooting. You see, the Committee is being given the impression that there is a fuselage of shots going on in the intersection, but it does not appear to be the case.

MR MBELO: No, there were no more shots in the intersection after this four people were down. It was quiet.

MR B WILLIAMS: So, what made it so difficult for you, then, to decide not to shoot Mr Mlifie. It could not have been the shots that were going on in the intersection, because there were none, not so?

MR MBELO: That is right.

MR B WILLIAMS: It was quiet, not so?

MR MBELO: That is what I said.

MR B WILLIAMS: You had the opportunity to consider the matter, not so?

MR MBELO: I had.

MR B WILLIAMS: We have heard very little about what was happening down the, on the western section of NY3, which is basically where you were. You were standing in the intersection, but you had a view down the western section of NY3?

MR MBELO: Yes, I had a view.

MR B WILLIAMS: Do you recollect any vehicle standing down there at any stage?

MR MBELO: Yes.

MR B WILLIAMS: At what stage was that?

MR MBELO: The time I arrived, I parked my car here. That is when I saw this vehicle standing there, because when I took the, that road behind the Dairy Belle Hostel there was no car there. So, it may happen that while I was behind the Dairy Belle Hostel, that car arrived there at that time.

MR B WILLIAMS: Do you have any knowledge of the death of the deceased who was lying in that field? I am not talking about two of the deceased that had been lying in the bushes in the western, north-western bushes. It is the deceased that is lying sort of in the, I think he is referred to as, at point P, on your diagram.

MR MBELO: No.

MR B WILLIAMS: You did not see that person falling?

MR MBELO: No.

MR B WILLIAMS: In your own opinion, Mr Mbelo, and judging by the instruction that had been given to you and in view of the fact that most of the deceased in this matter have serious injuries to their heads, would you agree that the inference is almost inescapable that they were meant to be killed? What do you say about that, as being a policeman and part of that team?

MR MBELO: I can tell, Mr Chairman, only one thing. According to what happened that day and according to what they told me, not to arrest that man, I came to the conclusion of one thing, nobody wanted to arrest those people, because Jimmy and Eric could have been exposed if those guys were arrested.

MR B WILLIAMS: Right. Could you tell us what happened after this incident? Was there a little celebration held?

MR MBELO: I heard they talk about any celebrations, we were not part of it, we Black guys. I hear that Captain Bellingan was there, so there was no celebration for us.

MR B WILLIAMS: Did you stay in Cape Town with Captain Bellingan, as he said, for some weeks, possibly even a month after this incident occurred?

MR MBELO: When I remember correctly, this Guguletu story, we took about three months here in the Cape Town. We stayed about three months, after three months we went back to Pretoria.

MR B WILLIAMS: Were you in Captain Bellingan's presence all the time as his Vlakplaas colleague?

MR MBELO: No, they had their places where they slept. We slept at our own place.

MR B WILLIAMS: Yes, but let us talk about during your working day now.

MR MBELO: You see how we operate, we only see the Whites in the morning when we go out and we report to them in the night when we return. So, we usually met on a daily basis, about twice a day.

MR B WILLIAMS: Did your infiltration work continue after this?

MR MBELO: Mine, I did not infiltrate any more.

MR B WILLIAMS: And Jimmy Mbane, do you know?

MR MBELO: No, they were taken back to Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to be much longer? I am not trying to hurry you.

MR B WILLIAMS: I am aware of the time and, perhaps, it may be an appropriate time to adjourn. There may be just one or two things I want ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

MR B WILLIAMS: ... to tie up at a later stage.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn till 09H630 tomorrow morning.

MS PATEL: Would everyone please rise?

ON RESUMPTION:

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: (Still under oath).

CHAIRPERSON: I would like to apologise and explain to the members of the public who have been sitting here since 09H30 the reason for the delay. It was proposed to call a certain witness today, but, unfortunately, it has emerged that he has not been offered, he had not been afforded an opportunity to consult a legal adviser before a statement was taken from him, nor was he afforded that opportunity in the light of the fact that he is one of the persons implicated in the present proceedings and, in terms of the Act, is entitled to legal advice. We, unfortunately, had to try to make arrangements this morning and that has been done and I think it is, all the lawyers concerned agree that it is a case where he is, should have and be improper to proceed without affording him the opportunity of taking legal advice. That means that we will not be able to conclude this hearing today, because it has not been possible to arrange for a lawyer to make himself available and to investigate the position fully in order to advise his client.

We will, however, proceed now with the continuing cross-examination of the second applicant and thereafter it will be necessary to adjourn this hearing to a date to be arranged.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR B WILLIAMS (cont):

MR B WILLIAMS: Thank you very much Mr Chairperson, members of the Committee. I now proceed with the cross-examination of Mr Mbelo. Are you ready Mr Mbelo?

MR P WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, before the applicant begins answering questions, he would just like to inform the Committee that he has decided to give his testimony in Tswana.

MR B WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, may I proceed?

INTERPRETER: The witness is having a technical problem on four for Tswana.

MR B WILLIAMS: You cannot hear me, Mr Mbelo?

MR MBELO: I cannot hear ... (intervention).

MR P WILLIAMS: The interpreter.

MR MBELO: ... the interpreter. She said ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Is the receiver set for channel four?

MR MBELO: It is set for channel four, Mr Chairman.

MR B WILLIAMS: Can you hear me now, Mr Mbelo? Can you hear me now?

MR MBELO: I am waiting for the translator to tell me, then I can hear her.

MR B WILLIAMS: You still cannot hear me, Mr Mbelo?

MR MBELO: I hear you, Mr Williams, but I do not hear my interpreter.

CHAIRPERSON: Nothing is coming through on channel four as far as I can hear.

MR B WILLIAMS: Can you hear me now, Mr Mbelo?

MR MBELO: Can only hear English and Xhosa, not Tswana.

MS KHAMPEPE: The translation has to come through in Tswana.

MR MBELO: Nothing happens on three, no Tswana.

INTERPRETER: We will try channel three for Tswana. He can hear me clearly now.

MR B WILLIAMS: May I then proceed, Mr Mbelo?

MR MBELO: Yes, your Honour.

MR B WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. Mr Mbelo, you testified yesterday, if I remember correctly, that there was a Caspar in the bushes, which is marked at the points S, T and QR.

MR MBELO: I do not remember giving evidence that there was a Caspar there.

MR B WILLIAMS: Have you possibly mentioned this in your application or in your Section 29 hearing which took place?

MR MBELO: Maybe I mentioned this after having seen the place.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is very far from him, we cannot get the sound clearly.

MR MBELO: I am saying, in my application I never said I saw a Caspar. It is possible that in my Section 29 I said so after having seen the video in the, used in the Weaver Trial.

MR B WILLIAMS: So, you are saying that you do not have any independent recollection of there being a Caspar there on that day?

MR MBELO: I am not saying I do not recall ...

INTERPRETER: There is a problem with the speaker's mike.

MR P WILLIAMS: Can you hear now?

MR MBELO: I was telling, I was saying that where I have written my affidavit there is nowhere I make mention of a Caspar, but perhaps in the Section 29 I mentioned the Caspar, because of the video used in the Weaver Trial.

MR B WILLIAMS: All right, I will leave that point there, Mr Mbelo.

You said in your evidence in-chief that you knew it would be impossible to arrest the, these armed men?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.

MR B WILLIAMS: You also said that words to the effect that the men were to be killed had been used?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Chairperson.

MR B WILLIAMS: Can you indicate to the Committee whom you recall actually using these words?

MR MBELO: The person that I recall clearly having used these words, it is my co-applicant for amnesty, Mr Bellingan.

MR B WILLIAMS: Do you recall mentioning in your Section 29 hearing that it was planned to ambush the guerrillas?

MR MBELO: I do not remember saying that, but it is possible.

MR B WILLIAMS: Do you recall saying that ambushing the guerrillas, by ambushing the guerrillas you understood to mean that they were to be killed?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MR B WILLIAMS: You also say that at some stage during your presence on the scene, you were instructed to withdraw, because the police bus had safely reached Guguletu Police Station? Is that correct?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so. They told us that the bus had already passed that point where it was supposed to be ambushed.

MR B WILLIAMS: We have also heard evidence from Mr Bellingan that, despite the instruction to withdraw, the police in the bushes were, in all probability, still concealed there. Do you agree with that?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.

MR B WILLIAMS: And do you also agree with him when he says that, in all probability, the vehicles in which the police were operating there, were still circulating in the are?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, I agree with him on that point.

MR B WILLIAMS: Now, when you saw the deceased, Christopher Piet, and four men in NY3, as you testified, did you see any other ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Is it NY3 or NY111, as we have been referring to it earlier?

MR B WILLIAMS: I must apologise, perhaps I should refer to it as NY111, if it pleases the Chairperson.

Mr Mbelo, when you saw the deceased, Christopher Piet, and the four men in NY111, while you were circulating, did you see any other police in that immediate vicinity?

MR MBELO: When I went past there, there were no other policemen or their vehicle. That is why I explained to them that it seems as if these culprits that you are looking for are approaching the intersection.

MR B WILLIAMS: And at the time that you noticed these men, they were walking in the direction of NY1. Am I correct?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir, they were approaching that direction.

MR B WILLIAMS: If you look at page 245 of Volume I, it is your application in this matter. You will notice that a few lines down to the bottom you say the following words and I quote,

Would you explain to the Committee which policemen you thought these men were about to attack?

MR MBELO: I would respond by saying that according to the ambush it was because of the planned attack by these men and they are going to attack a Kombi. I was explaining to them that the men that they were waiting for have just passed by, but the Kombi had already passed at that point. I was just explaining to them that the men that they were looking for were in the intersection of NY1 and NY111.

MR B WILLIAMS: But the reason, that you say on this page that I have quoted to you, is that you thought that the men were intent on attacking the policemen and the question is which policemen were the men intent on attacking?

MR MBELO: That is the Kombi that had already passed, Chairperson.

MR B WILLIAMS: But, Mr Mbelo, you have just testified that the Kombi was already safely at the police station.

MR P WILLIAMS OBJECTS:

MR P WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, with all due respect, it is my respectful submission that this sentence is capable, is ambiguous, it is capable of more than one construction and the explanation that the applicant has given is the construction to be put on the sentence.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Williams, I have the same problem and difficulty that Mr Brent Williams has. I only read the statement as meaning that Mr Mbelo communicated the fact that the insurgents were around, because he was of the belief that the insurgents intended to attack the policemen. I mean, it is quite clear and I do not think it is in dispute. The whole operation was planned in reaction to the intended attack by the insurgents on the mini-bus, not on the individual policemen. I read it the same way as Mr Brent Williams reads it and I would have wanted Mr Mbelo to give me an explanation as well.

MR P WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, if I can be of assistance. I have drafted the affidavit and maybe the emphasis should have been on the people that he saw. The impression was that it is the people that he saw, he was under the impression that they were the people or they were the group who were intent on attacking the policemen. So, ... (intervention).

MR B WILLIAMS OBJECTS:

MR B WILLIAMS: Mr Chairperson, I must object here. I have a problem with my colleague giving evidence on behalf of his client.

CHAIRPERSON: Does it really take the matter any further?

MR B WILLIAMS: Your Worship, I actually think it does. I am getting to the point, your Worship.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, get to the point.

MR B WILLIAMS: Thank you very much.

Mr Mbelo, you will then concede that at the time that you saw these men, there is absolutely no possibility that they were going to be attacking anybody?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.

MR B WILLIAMS: And it is also a common cause that by all accounts these men were unaware of the presence of the other policemen who were concealed in the bushes, not so?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.

MR B WILLIAMS: Would you agree with me that up until that point that you communicated the presence of these men to your colleagues, there had been absolutely no shooting at all?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.

MR B WILLIAMS: Would you agree that the shooting only commenced after you had communicated the presence of these men to your colleagues?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MR B WILLIAMS: Do you not agree that by communicating their presence and position you were, for all intents and purposes, signing these mens death warrants?

MR P WILLIAMS OBJECTS:

MR P WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, I object to the question posed to the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR P WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, if, the question is that the applicant signed the death warrants, it is not the applicant who signed their death warrants, your, Mr Chairman. The applicant was there, was on the scene for a specific purpose or for a specific mission your, Mr Chairman, and on the scene he fell under a certain command and he acted out of his duty at that time, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It may be incorrect to say signed the death warrants, they had already been signed. He sought to bring them into effect.

MR B WILLIAMS: Thank you very much, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Mbelo, would you agree that you sought to bring into effect the death of these men?

MR MBELO: By telling them these people were there, as a policeman it was my duty to inform that, these people that they have been long waiting for, they are there and if there is an intention to arrest them, then that was the appropriate time. As my co-applicant has already indicated that Eric had also told him that these men were already there.

MR B WILLIAMS: Mr Mbelo, at this stage we are dealing with you and you now want to convey to the Committee that you thought it was an appropriate time to arrest them. Do you not agree, you have already testified that the question of arresting these men was, in your mind, absolutely impossible?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir, according to the way we were told, they will be heavily armed.

MR B WILLIAMS: You have already testified that words to the effect of "sweep them", "eliminate them" were used, which you understood to mean kill them.

MR MBELO: Yes, Chairperson, it is so.

MR B WILLIAMS: So, you will agree that when you announced to your colleagues that these people were on the scene, you knew that they would be killed, not so?

MR MBELO: According to what I have heard, it is so.

MR B WILLIAMS: Mr Mbelo, do you agree that those individuals were sitting ducks?

INTERPRETER: Please repeat the question.

MR B WILLIAMS: Do you understand the term "sitting ducks", Mr Mbelo?

MR MBELO: Yes, I understand.

MR B WILLIAMS: Do you agree that those individuals, when you made that announcement, those individuals were sitting ducks in their position?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you told us that you believed they were heavily armed, hardly sitting ducks?

MR MBELO: According to the plan, I heard that they will be heavily armed.

MR B WILLIAMS: Mr Mbelo, if I understand you correctly, you never said that you saw any arms on those men when you saw them at the intersection of NY3, not so?

MR MBELO: That is true, Sir.

MR B WILLIAMS: Now, can you help this Committee by explaining what your thinking was when you exposed these men to certain death?

MR MBELO: As a policeman, at that particular morning, was to go and wait for these men and we were told to withdraw, because the Kombi had already passed, but as a policeman I had to tell them that the suspects were there. That was my duty.

MR B WILLIAMS: I want to put it to you, Mr Mbelo, that the only reason why you mentioned that those men were there was because it was your intention, as it was your colleagues intention, to eliminate those people.

MR MBELO: According to the manner in which they died, I would agree with you there.

MR B WILLIAMS: You further testified, Mr Mbelo, that you went from that intersection around the block and came back to that intersection, not so?

MR MBELO: Yes, I went around NY111 and re-entered NY1. MR B WILLIAMS: Can you give this Committee an indication of how long it took you, it may have taken minutes, to round that block and come back to the same position, or a similar position, to where the vehicle is parked, your vehicle is parked, as indicated in the diagram? Just a rough estimate.

MR MBELO: I do not recall clearly how long it took me.

MR B WILLIAMS: Would you agree that it would have been matter of a minute or two, at most?

MR MBELO: Yes, that is possible, Sir.

MR B WILLIAMS: So, the space of, to be fair to you, say, three minutes, by the time you reached that intersection Jabu Miya and Christopher Piet were dying or already dead, because they were down, according to your evidence, not so?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir, not Chris. When I got to the intersection Chris was running and shooting when I get there, but Jabu was already down.

MR B WILLIAMS: But you will concede that moments later he was down as well, not so?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.

MR B WILLIAMS: And this is the person as position D?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.

MR B WILLIAMS: And if we understand your evidence correctly, it must have been moments after you arrived at the intersection that an unarmed Zabonke Konile and a surrendering Mr Mlifie also lost their lives?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.

MR B WILLIAMS: So, would you agree, that by all accounts, in the space of a matter of minutes, four people had lost their lives?

MR MBELO: I do not disagree with you.

MR B WILLIAMS: You will also agree with me that this places into perspective why Captain Bellingan regards the operation as a 100% successful?

MR P WILLIAMS OBJECTS:

MR P WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, is the witness or the applicant required to answer what Mr Bellingan thought?

CHAIRPERSON: Is he not really been asked whether his, in his opinion this was why Bellingan thought it was successful, that people had been killed? Put it differently. Was this what Mr Bellingan, what you thought Mr Bellingan had wanted to achieve.

MR MBELO: That is what I think, Sir.

MR B WILLIAMS: Would you agree, Mr Mbelo, that this was ruthless precision?

MR MBELO: Yes, I agree with you, Sir.

MR B WILLIAMS: Is this the challenge of Vlakplaas work which compelled you to maintain an association with Vlakplaas from 1981 to 1993?

MR MBELO: I was not bound by loving to work at Vlakplaas. I was bound by the situation that prevailed at that moment whilst Vlakplaas was in operation.

MR B WILLIAMS: We will come to your ... (intervention). CHAIRPERSON: Can we go back for a minute? I wonder if you can help me on this, I am a little confused. You have told us that when you first came to the intersection there were no other policemen visible there. Is that correct?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir, when I was in NY111.

CHAIRPERSON: You drove round the block and while you were behind the building you heard shooting?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And when you came back somebody shot your vehicle?

MR MBELO: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We have heard that somebody shot Mr Bellingan's vehicle and injured him?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And we have been told about these, one man who was lying in the road already, Jabu and Chris, who was shot.

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was doing all the shooting? At that stage, as I understand it, nobody in your vehicle was shooting.

MR MBELO: I do not understand, Chairperson, are you talking about somebody who was shooting me? Please rephrase your question.

CHAIRPERSON: No, who shot Jabu? Who could have shot him?

MR MBELO: He might have been shot by the policemen who were in NY111, because that is where he fell at the corner of that street.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, what policemen were there?

MR MBELO: Your Honour, as I have explained, according to this map, on the east, the east side bush, there were policemen and on the west side as well. According to my knowledge, the policemen who were at point A are the one who might have shot Jabu.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that is not according to the evidence we have heard. They said they, Bellingan, as I recollect it, said he saw the body lying there. Were there other policemen, is that what you are now saying, there were other policemen hiding in the bushes along that road?

MR MBELO: Your Honour, there were policemen who had hidden in the bush, according to the briefing at Wingfield in that morning. Those men were positioned there for the attack.

CHAIRPERSON: And they, the, Christopher and the other four men must have walked past them?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And were there also men positioned in the bush on the other side, on the west side?

INTERPRETER: The witness cannot hear the interpretation.

CHAIRPERSON: Were there also policemen hidden in the bushes on the west side of the NY1?

MR MBELO: Yes, Mr Chairman, there were. I cannot hear my interpreter.

CHAIRPERSON: And once you got there, there were four policemen in your vehicle?

MR MBELO: When I passed, when I was with two White Riot Squad members in my car.

CHAIRPERSON: And anybody else?

MR MBELO: I was the driver and the fourth man was Constable Nobela.

CHAIRPERSON: So, there were four policemen there then?

MR MBELO: (Not translated).

CHAIRPERSON: And were the two, the Sergeant who told you to shoot the man who was trying to surrender, where did he come from?

MR MBELO: Your Honour, the policemen on the west side, during the shooting they came nearer to the scene where I was.

CHAIRPERSON: And was he one of those, he was not one of the two Riot Squad people who were in your car?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR B WILLIAMS: May I continue, Mr Chairperson?

MR MBELO: (Not translated).

MR B WILLIAMS: Now, just dealing with your position in the intersection, the Chairperson has just dealt with it as well, in your evidence yesterday you confirmed that when you entered the intersection of NY1 and NY3, you were aware that Jabulanie Miya was already down at point B and Christopher Piet was down at point D shortly afterwards, not so?

MR MBELO: I did not hear the last person you mentioned and who was shot before who.

MR B WILLIAMS: When you arrived in the intersection Jabulanie Miya was already down, at point B on your map, and Christopher Piet was down at point D on your map shortly after you arrived in the intersection, that is what you have said, not so?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.

MR B WILLIAMS: So, when the beige van, this is the van in which the guerrillas allegedly were, arrives on the scene, there cannot be any question of any further shooting in the intersection, not so?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.

MR B WILLIAMS: Because you will agree that neither Zabonke Konile nor Mr Mlifie had used his arm? Do you agree?

MR MBELO: The man I shot did not use his firearm at all and Mr Zabonke, I do not believe he did as well.

MR B WILLIAMS: So, to get to the point, when Captain Bellingan creates the impression that at the time that he shoots Zabonke there are still shots flying around him, he is, most certainly, incorrect, not so?

MR MBELO: I would say he is lying when he says he was shooting from the east side, but there was some shooting still from the west side.

MR B WILLIAMS: And you will agree that that was in the bush, not so?

MR MBELO: Yes, Sir.

MR B WILLIAMS: Do you recall that at the time of the Weaver Trial and at the inquest that bush was measured to be approximately 200 metres to 400 metres away from the intersection?

MR MBELO: I do not recall clearly as to what the distance mentioned there.

MR B WILLIAMS: All right. Something which I do not have clarity on and which I would like you to clarify for us, is that did you first shoot Mr Mlifie or did Captain Bellingan first shoot Zabonke, which came first?

MR MBELO: I would say Mr Bellingan when he shot Mr Zabonke I shot Mr Mlifie immediately after him. After he had shot Mr Zabonke, that is when I shot Mr Mlifie.

MR B WILLIAMS: Right, so there is no question of the shootings occurring simultaneously, not so? The shooting of Mr Zabonke and the shooting of Mr Mlifie, they did not occur simultaneously?

MR MBELO: No, they did not occur simultaneously.

MR B WILLIAMS: Which must mean, then, that by the time you shot Mr Mlifie there were also no shots flying around in the intersection, not so?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.

MR B WILLIAMS: Would you agree that the fact, that when one looks at the video and also at the photographs, you can find not a single bullet mark in the beige van, that it must serve to confirm that it could not have been the case that there were shots flying all over the intersection, either when Mr Bellingan shot Zabonke or when you shot Mr Mlifie? Do you agree?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.

MR B WILLIAMS: Relating to the question of the killing of Mr Mlifie by yourself, would you tell the Committee who disarmed Mr Mlifie?

MR MBELO: Mlifie's firearm was taken from him, what I did, I threw him down and one of the Riot Squad members disarmed him and that is after Mlifie indicated that he will take us where the rest of the group was.

MR B WILLIAMS: Yes, I understand all that. The question simply is who disarmed him, who took the firearm away from him?

MR MBELO: Chairperson, I do not know the names of these people. It was the first time I worked with them. I do not know their names.

MR B WILLIAMS: You also have no idea who fired the second shot at Mr Mlifie while he was lying on the ground?

MR MBELO: I think it is a Sergeant, but I do not know his name.

MR B WILLIAMS: Is this the same Sergeant whom you allege gave you the instruction to shoot him?

MR MBELO: That is so, Sir.

MR B WILLIAMS: And you say you do not know who this person is?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Chairperson.

MR B WILLIAMS: Did you stay by Mr Mlifie's body? Did you stay by ...

MR MBELO: No, Sir.

MR B WILLIAMS: You did not stay there even momentarily whilst Mr Mlifie was lying on the ground after he had been shot?

MR MBELO: It, I was just standing around there, but we were being called to come and identify the bodies that were lying around.

MR B WILLIAMS: Whose idea was it to place Mr Mlifie's firearm back on his body?

MR MBELO: I do not know, Sir, but I think it was for the photo session purpose.

MR B WILLIAMS: What was it intended to convey having put Mr Mlifie's firearm back on him?

MR MBELO: I think it was to show evidence that they were armed.

MR B WILLIAMS: Is it not correct that it was also to show that these people had tried to use their weapons, not so, Mr Mbelo?

MR MBELO: That is the thought that occurred to me at a later stage.

MR B WILLIAMS: That was certainly the statement that you made at the time, Mr Mbelo.

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MR B WILLIAMS: Would you agree that for the same purposes a similar thing could have been done to each of the other deceased apart from Christopher Piet and apart from Mr Mxinwa, who it is alleged, lobbed the hand grenade. What do you say about that?

MR MBELO: That is a very difficult question for me to answer, but according to the things that happened, I would agree with you.

MR B WILLIAMS: As a Vlakplaas operative, Mr Mbelo, do you not think that it was perfectly possible that it could have happened that way?

MR MBELO: Chairperson, Vlakplaas is capable of a lot of things and that is possible also.

MR B WILLIAMS: Perhaps I should just help you. You will recall that in the previous proceedings Mr Mxinwa, and to help you on the plan, that is the person at point Q, had allegedly been found with an undischarged hand grenade lying between his legs, not so?

MR MBELO: Yes, it has appeared even on the photos. That is correct.

MR B WILLIAMS: And you will agree that Mr Mjobo, who is the person allegedly lying at point, the person lying at point S, was found, allegedly found with a pistol at his side which, according to the policemen at the time who had killed him, he had never used. Do you agree?

MR MBELO: That is correct. It has appeared even on TV.

MR B WILLIAMS: And we also know that Mr Jabu Miya, the person who was allegedly found at point B, was also allegedly found with an undischarged hand grenade, not so?

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MR B WILLIAMS: And we now know that your Mr Mlifie had never attempted to use his firearm and yet it was placed back on his body, not so?

MR MBELO: That is so.

MR B WILLIAMS: You remember (end of tape 1A) seeing Captain Liebenberg there on that day?

MR MBELO: Yes, he was present at the scene immediately after the shooting. I saw him walking around together with some other men.

MR B WILLIAMS: Was he not there before the shooting, Mr Mbelo?

MR MBELO: Mr Liebenberg was present even at Wingfield. As to who he was with, I am not positive. At the time of the shooting he was present at the scene nearby.

MR B WILLIAMS: Do you remember the then Major Odendal testifying that Captain Liebenberg and the video crew were in one vehicle? Can you dispute that?

MR MBELO: According to the testimony that has been given, yes, I do remember.

MR B WILLIAMS: Now, would you agree then that the inference is inescapable that Captain Liebenberg and his video crew were right there before the shooting went down and during the shooting, not so?

MR MBELO: I do agree, they were in the vicinity.

MR B WILLIAMS: I want to put it to you that you have seen another video to this incident, apart from the one that the Committee has had the benefit of. What do you say about that?

MR MBELO: I do not agree with you on that aspect.

MR B WILLIAMS: I would ask you to think very carefully about that, Mr Mbelo. What do you say?

MR MBELO: After the shooting we were not shown any other video. This is the video that was shown to us in court.

MR B WILLIAMS: Yes, I am aware this is the video that was shown to you in court. I am talking about a video that you had seen outside of court, do you know about that?

MR MBELO: There is no other video that was shown to me besides the one that was shown in court as well as here. Probably, if it was shown, it was shown to the Whites and their seniors or the people who were in power at that time, but not us.

MR B WILLIAMS: Do I understand you to be acknowledging the existence of another video, but that you have not seen that video?

MR MBELO: What I am saying is that if the cameraman is there when the shooting takes place, it is possible that they made their own video, but that I am not aware of.

MR B WILLIAMS: All right. One last question on the video. Did you see the video crew there at the time that you shot Mr Mlifie, were they very nearby you?

MR MBELO: No, I never saw any camera crew.

MR B WILLIAMS: When you went up in the helicopter was there any camera crew with you?

MR MBELO: Yes, there was a camera man above who was taking photos of the scene of the shooting.

MR B WILLIAMS: Do you recall seeing the same camera man also on the ground that day?

MR MBELO: I do not recall quite well. It is probable that he was there.

MR B WILLIAMS: Can you give the Committee the benefit of this person's name?

MR MBELO: I do not know his name.

MR B WILLIAMS: All right. Now, you have annexed some or you have referred to some documents. I am not going to be too long your Worship, five more minutes, you have referred to some documents in the, in your application, the affidavit, sorry, in this application. I would like to ask you have you read the document called "Planning for a Peoples' War"? Have you read that document?

MR MBELO: I have never read that document.

MR B WILLIAMS: Did you attend the submission, the second submission of the ANC to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, were you there?

MR MBELO: No.

MR B WILLIAMS: Did you read a document titled "The Second Submission of the ANC to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission" dated 12 May 1997?

MR MBELO: That document came to my attention through my attorney.

MR B WILLIAMS: I see. So, if there is any impression created here that you have read any of these documents and that these documents are what strengthened your personal perceptions at the time that this incident happened, that is quite incorrect, not so?

MR MBELO: No, Chairperson.

MR B WILLIAMS: When you say, and I quote on page 243 of the first bundle,

sorry it is the third paragraph, for the benefit of the members of the Committee,

That is incorrect, not so?

MR MBELO: Yes, during those years, that is the 80's, we, as the police, were fighting for freedom and we were enemies of the comrades, because we were delaying their fight for liberation.

MR B WILLIAMS: But the perception created here that these documents confirmed your perceptions, that is incorrect, not so?

MR MBELO: These documents never influenced me, but I was influenced by the situation as it prevailed at that time in South Africa.

MR B WILLIAMS: Mr Mbelo, would you tell the Committee, at the time that you were a policeman, which was, approximately, from 1981, you were, you had joined the security police and were shortly thereafter at Vlakplaas, not so? Not so?

MR MBELO: That is so.

MR B WILLIAMS: You personally never lived in the community, not so?

MR MBELO: No, that is not so, I did stay amongst the people.

MR B WILLIAMS: Are we then incorrect if we understand that you stayed at Vlakplaas and you lived, the spent the better part of your time there, as a Vlakplaas operative?

MR MBELO: Chairperson, we were not staying at Vlakplaas. We were going in and out to different provinces as well as different cities and we were meeting the public as we were travelling.

MR B WILLIAMS: Yes, but you were never an uniformed policeman, I mean, you always operated covertly, not so?

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MR B WILLIAMS: So, would you agree that you were not at risk of being attacked as a policeman, because you could never be identified as a policeman, not so?

MR MBELO: I was in danger just like any other policeman, because where I was born there was not any single soul who did not know that I was a policeman. Even my house or my home was in danger of being attacked, because they knew there was a policeman living at that house.

MR B WILLIAMS: I want to put it to you, Mr Mbelo, that you have tried to hide behind orders and circumstances to justify your conduct. You have not come here unequivocally to say to this Committee and the families that you have done wrong. What do you say about that?

MR MBELO: Chairperson, the first thing, if I did not want to tell you what I know about this, I would not have come before this Commission and if I did not want the members of the family to forgive me, I would not have come that. The main reason that I have come before this Commission is to tell this Committee as to what I know about this shooting and the part that I took, because the nation at large does not know about what we were doing at that time and I have come here prepared to face the music of whatever I have done in the past.

MR B WILLIAMS: I will come back to that point in a moment, Mr Mbelo, there is just one other thing I need to clarify with you. You said in your evidence yesterday that Captain Bellingan had changed your affidavit. Would you tell the court, what had you conveyed in your original affidavit?

MR MBELO: Chairperson, even that first affidavit was not a lengthy or an affidavit that went into the depths of all the things that we did and it was structured in such a manner that whatever we did should not appear as an evil deed, but as if the police were doing their job and they were obliged to do so and whatever happened was not written in depth in the first affidavit. It was written according to Mr Bellingan's requirements. So, it was not a true reflection of the events as they took place

MR B WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr Mbelo, but the question that I ask of you is what was your first affidavit? Are you saying to this Committee that your first affidavit said what you are saying to this Committee today about what happened there?

MR MBELO: No.

MR B WILLIAMS: Then would you explain to the Committee why you are trying to create the impression or trying to reflect Captain Bellingan in an even worse light than he already is, in my respectful view, by suggesting that he tampered with your original statement which was the truthful one? Why do you try to create that impression for the Committee?

MR MBELO: It is because my first statement was not going to tally with the statement that he had made, because in my statement I was told to say that this guy was trying to take out his gun on Captain Bellingan. That is what I said on the other statement and they said I should not mention the fact that he had lifted his hands up. I should say that he was trying to shoot at Captain Bellingan or attack him.

MR B WILLIAMS: Are you saying that you would have said in your first statement that the person was surrendering, is that what you are trying to tell the Committee today?

MR MBELO: Not when I was still in Vlakplaas, that though never ever crossed my mind.

MR B WILLIAMS: Precisely. If you look at page 244 of your application, you deal with the question of torture. I would like to ask you a question about that. You say,

So, once again, you are not saying that you did not want to participate in the torture, you are saying that you were forced to, not so?

MR MBELO: Yes, there were certain things that were happening and if you do not take part you were taken as a sell-out, as if you wanted to side with the liberation fighters.

MR B WILLIAMS: Mr Mbelo, you will agree that you could have been transferred out of Vlakplaas at any stage, you were a policeman, you were not an askari? Do you agree with that?

MR MBELO: Mr Williams, if we can look at the security establishment as a whole, it was not Vlakplaas only that employed assaults or torture as a means of extracting evidence from people. So, it was not difficult for me to move from that place, but it would have remained the same, because the security branch was all over the country.

MR B WILLIAMS: The point that one wants to make is that you had a choice as to whether you wanted to participate in acts of torture. You could have decided to be transferred out of that branch of the police. Do you agree that that was possible?

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MR B WILLIAMS: Once again, you say in your evidence, I was ordered to execute Mr Mlifie, I had no choice, not so?

MR MBELO: Yes, on that aspect it is so.

MR B WILLIAMS: You say that when you lied in previous proceedings you were told to lie, not so?

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MR B WILLIAMS: And if you look at paragraph 26 of your affidavit you say there as a catchall,

not so?

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MR B WILLIAMS: So, you are actually not coming to this Committee to say I know I committed crimes, I have done wrong. You are actually coming to this Committee and saying I have done something wrong, but I had no choice, not so?

MR MBELO: I will say to the Committee I have come here to ask for amnesty, because of the things that I did, but to qualify that, I would say I was coerced into this situation, I had absolutely no choice at that time.

MR B WILLIAMS: You will agree that you have much to gain by this amnesty application, not so?

MR MBELO: Chairperson, you asked me that question yesterday, I said that what I will gain is the trust of the people that I have dismayed and that is all that I need. Even the members of the families, the relatives, friends, I need forgiveness and to gain back the trust.

MR B WILLIAMS: No, Mr Mbelo, what you have to gain by this amnesty application is indemnity for murdering seven people. That is what you have to gain. What do you say about that?

MR MBELO: Chairperson, I have come to ask for forgiveness for killing a man.

MR B WILLIAMS: What has prompted you not or let me ask the question differently. Why have you not, in ten years since this incident, asked for forgiveness? Would you tell the Committee that?

MR MBELO: There was no Truth and Reconciliation Committee or Amnesty Committee, it was only established lately.

MR B WILLIAMS: Do I translate what you are saying to mean that you had nothing to gain?

MR MBELO: Before the establishment of this Committee I did not see as to who was going to forgive me or who was I going to ask forgiveness from, because there was absolutely no mechanism for me to do that.

MR B WILLIAMS: Perhaps you can listen to this proposition, Mr Mbelo. Your Section 29 inquiry occurred on, approximately, the sixth of December last year, not so? Approximately?

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MR B WILLIAMS: Were you confronted with evidence there about askaris who knew about what had happened on that day?

MR MBELO: I do not remember well, it is possible that it happened.

MR B WILLIAMS: You see, because I put it to you that it is a week later that you apply for amnesty. What do you say about that?

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MR B WILLIAMS: Would you agree that there is no flood of conscience here, Mr Mbelo?

MR MBELO: I do not agree with you, because there was a set date after which we could not ask for amnesty. That is why I lodged my application a week thereafter.

MR B WILLIAMS: I want to quote to you why you stayed at Vlakplaas and it has nothing to do with being compelled to, it has nothing to do with political motive. If you have a look at page 375 of your Section 29 statement, I will quote to you the following passage. The question that is asked of you is,

and your answer, Mr Mbelo, is the following,

and I dare say you were being honest,

Now, Mr Mbelo, can you explain to the Committee where your political motivation comes from now?

MR MBELO: I will explain it thus. There was not much that was done at Vlakplaas. If we do not have any missions or operations to take care of, there was absolutely nothing to do at Vlakplaas. We remained at the farm just lazing around, but whenever there was work for us to do, we would go out to different places to complete or accomplish our missions.

MR B WILLIAMS: The short answer is, Mr Mbelo, that despite the torture, the death, the cross-border raids, you regarded Vlakplaas as a holiday, not so?

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MR B WILLIAMS: I have no further questions, Mr Chairperson.

MS PATEL: May I suggest that we adjourn for tea?

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MS PATEL: Would everyone please rise?

ON RESUMPTION:

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: (Still under oath).

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL:

MS PATEL: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Good afternoon Mr Mbelo, can you hear me?

INTERPRETER: Excuse me, the Tswana interpreter is not yet in the booth. I do not know what is happening.

MR MBELO: I cannot hear nothing.

INTERPRETER: The witness says he has got a problem hearing anything that is coming from the booth. There seems to be a problem. He says his headphone sets are making a lot of noise and he cannot pick up what is being said from the booth.

MS KHAMPEPE: But is there a Tswana translator in the booth?

INTERPRETER: No, I was speaking Tswana to him.

MS KHAMPEPE: Okay.

INTERPRETER: But I am not a Tswana speaker.

MS KHAMPEPE: Can you say something to him?

INTERPRETER: Yes, he says he can hear me, but I am, I sound very dim and low. The headsets, headphone set is making a lot of noise. He cannot pick up what is being said.

MS KHAMPEPE: Can you request the technician to attend to him, please?

MR MBELO: It is making noise.

INTERPRETER: He cannot pick up anything.

MR P WILLIAMS: Hello, Mr Chairman, this headphones are defective. There is something wrong with the ... (intervention).

MS KHAMPEPE: I think it is not only that.

CHAIRPERSON: It is now on channel three, I am told, not channel four.

MR MBELO: That was channel three, Mr Chairman.

INTERPRETER: He cannot pick up any sound from the booth.

MS KHAMPEPE: I think there is something wrong with channel three.

INTERPRETER: The technician says he is going to fix the problem up.

MS KHAMPEPE: Yes.

INTERPRETER: There is something wrong with the ... (intervention).

MS KHAMPEPE: With channel three.

INTERPRETER: Yes.

MS KHAMPEPE: Because even with our microphones there is a serious interference.

INTERPRETER: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: We have been asked to adjourn and I have been told that there is something terribly wrong with the sound system. We will adjourn for a few minutes, I hope.

MS PATEL: Would everyone please rise?

ON RESUMPTION:

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: (Still under oath).

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL (cont):

MS PATEL: Mr Mbelo, can you hear me?

MR MBELO: I can hear you clearly.

MS PATEL: Just to pick up on a few points, Mr Mbelo. You stated under cross-examination that torture was one of the methods that was commonly used at Vlakplaas?

MR MBELO: That is correct, I said that.

MS PATEL: You said, further, that it was one of the most effective means of eliciting information from whoever was being tortured? Is that correct?

MR MBELO: That is so.

MS PATEL: Could you briefly explain, not the methods of torture that were being used, but what was done with the information once it was gained from the parties after the torture had taken place?

MR MBELO: After getting the information from the person we used it to make some follow-ups and we would actually get whatever we want from that person.

MS PATEL: Would the information then be used in order to be processed through the proper judicial system, through lawful means in order to effect arrests and bring people to court?

MR MBELO: Yes, many a time it did happen like that.

MS PATEL: So, then, given what had happened in Guguletu on that morning, if these people were arrested information could surely then have been elicited from them in order for them to be brought to justice?

MR MBELO: That is correct.

MS PATEL: Just to move on to a different point. When you had infiltrated this group, can you recall more or less whether any people that you had seen then were then subsequently part of the group that was killed?

MR MBELO: Yes, I think so, it is like that.

MS PATEL: Did you at any stage relay this information to the subsequent infiltrators who went in, namely Mr Mbane and Mr Maluleka?

MR MBELO: No, I did not give Mr Maluleka or Mbane this information, but I forwarded it to Bellingan who was my Commander at that time, together with Mr Liebenberg.

MS PATEL: All right. During your time there can you, perhaps, give us an indication of what kind of information, specifically, was then relayed back to Mr Bellingan and Mr Liebenberg?

MR MBELO: I did not have much information, because I did not remain for a long time with these men, but what I gave them was the information to the effect that I had been given an address, that is this persons address, whilst I was at this cell before I was taken to these men where they had congregated.

CHAIRPERSON: So, you were given an address in the cell and did you go there and find these people congregated there?

MR MBELO: No, Chairperson, the address I had been given was to the brother's place and I went there to see him. He is the one who took me to where these men had congregated or where they use to congregate.

MS PATEL: Mr Mbelo, did you get any information from this group about what kind of activities they were involved in or where they lived?

MR MBELO: What I saw when I got there was that these people were liberation fighters or sympathisers. I could say comrades and they were doing patrols during the night. That is all that I was able to glean or get when I got there.

MS PATEL: When you came back and reported to Mr Bellingan...

MR MBELO: Yes, I went back to Mr Bellingan to report.

MS PATEL: The impression given is that you were afraid after you had spent the night with this group. Could you, perhaps, give us more information or explain more fully why exactly it is that you were afraid?

MR MBELO: What made me to get scared was that I was told that they would go and phone the number that I had given them in order to verify the fact that I had been sent by these people to the Western Cape.

MS PATEL: What did you think would happen to you if they had found out that you were an infiltrator?

MR MBELO: I thought I could possibly be necklaced.

MS PATEL: Why did you think that?

MR MBELO: It is because during the previous years it was a very common thing for informers or infiltrators to be necklaced.

MS PATEL: Is it correct, then, to say that you then came to the conclusion that your life was in danger, not because of anything specific that the group had said or done towards you, but because of your knowledge of other incidents, perhaps, that had taken place?

MR MBELO: Chairperson, they even told me that I must not try to run away, because they would catch up with me, it was at night and I would not be able to get away. That is what made me even more scared.

MS PATEL: Was this your first time at trying to infiltrate a group?

MR MBELO: Yes, that is correct with regard to people who had been trained.

MS PATEL: How did you know they were trained? Is this because of the information that was forwarded to you by Mr Bellingan and Mr Liebenberg?

MR MBELO: Yes, that is correct, I acted upon information that I got from Captain Liebenberg as well as Mr Bellingan.

MS PATEL: So, except for the fact that or for the impression that you gained that they were doing patrols, you had no further information or nothing further had occurred during your stay there with them to substantiate the information that Mr Bellingan and Mr Liebenberg had given to you regarding the fact of whether they were trained or not?

MR MBELO: No, there is nothing that happened besides that.

MS PATEL: Thank you. To move on to another point then. Just generally, my learned colleague, Mr Williams, Brent Williams, has touched on it. Just in terms of the weapons at the scene, from the data that we have and just from various applications that other people have made, that it was part of the modus operandi at Vlakplaas that in certain instances when an operation needed to be covered up, that weapons were planted at bodies. What is your comment?

MR MBELO: With regard to putting weapons on peoples' bodies, I had never been involved in such a situation, but what I know is that the commanders of the groups, that is the Whites, many a time they had some Russian made weapons in their cars as well as grenades. They were kept in their cars.

MS PATEL: For what purpose were these weapons kept in their cars?

MR MBELO: I would not be able to comment on that, but I know that they use to keep such weapons in their cars.

MS PATEL: All right. Just to go back to the scene. You will, however, confirm that when Mr Mlifie was killed, was shot and killed, he was unarmed?

MR MBELO: When Mr Mlifie was shot he had a gun on his body and it was not in his hands.

MS PATEL: Was the evidence not that the gun, that he was disarmed, that the gun was taken away from him?

MR MBELO: Yes, he was disarmed first, then he was shot. By the time he was shot, he had no gun on him.

MS PATEL: Yet, in the photographs we see him laying with a gun on his abdomen area. Is that correct, do you confirm that?

MR MBELO: That is correct, on the photos that is how it appears.

MS KHAMPEPE: May I interpose, Ms Patel. Mr Mbelo, who disarmed Mr Mlifie?

MR MBELO: If I remember well, I took Mr Mlifie's gun.

MS KHAMPEPE: Were you instructed by any person to do that?

MR MBELO: Such instructions to disarm a person, when you are a policeman you do not need specific instructions to disarm a suspect, but that is what I just thought I had to do as a policeman.

CHAIRPERSON: My recollection of your evidence a short while ago is that you said one of the White policeman took his gun? Did you say that?

MR MBELO: I want to put this in perspective. I said I took the gun from him and gave it to one of the White policeman.

MS KHAMPEPE: That is not what you said, with due respect, Mr Mbelo. You made it quite clear that Mr Mlifie was disarmed by a policeman, it was not clear to me whether that policeman was the same policeman that subsequently instructed you to shoot him. That is how I recollect your evidence. That is why I was asking you at whose instructions did you disarm him.

MR MBELO: Maybe I was not understood quite well or I did not get it through well. I took the gun from the person and I gave it to the White officer whom I said I did not know, but he actually instructed me to shoot.

CHAIRPERSON: What you said was,

MR MBELO: The things happened fast that day. It is possible that that is the answer that I gave and it is possible that I made a mistake. I do remember pushing him down.

MS KHAMPEPE: Which version should we now accept? (end of tape 1B).

MR MBELO: I do concede that I made a mistake. The version that you should accept is that I pushed him down, I disarmed him and I gave, I handed over his gun to the White officer.

MS PATEL: May I ... (intervention).

MS KHAMPEPE: You may proceed, Ms Patel.

MS PATEL: Thank you Ms Khampepe.

Mr Mbelo, the point I wish to make, though, is that at the time when Mr Mlifie was killed or immediately after he was shot, he did not have a firearm in his possession, yet afterwards, both on the police video and in the photographs, we see a gun lying on his abdomen. Do you confirm that?

MR MBELO: Yes, I confirm that, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Do you then accept, as an inescapable inference, that that weapon that one sees on the video, had then been placed on the body of Mr Mlifie?

MR MBELO: Yes, I agree with the Commission that that video was actually placed on his body after he died.

MS PATEL: I am sorry, perhaps, there is a problem with the translation. Is it the video or the weapon that was placed on the body?

MR MBELO: I am saying to this Commission the weapon that is seen in the video was actually placed on Mr Mlifie after his death.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Mr Mbelo. Can you recall, I know it took a long, it took place a long ago, can you recall whether any other weapons were placed besides the bodies of any of the other victims on that day?

MR MBELO: I do not remember seeing any other bodies being placed, with weapons being placed next to them, but as we went around we realised that there were weapons next to these people as it appeared on the photos and the video.

ADV MOTATA: Mr Mbelo, in respect of Mlifie, did you actually see the weapon placed on his abdomen?

MR MBELO: Your Honour, when this weapon was placed on his body, I did not see. Can I go on?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV MOTATA: Yes.

MR MBELO: Because when I saw the photographs I was very surprised to see this on his abdomen when I actually knew that it was actually removed from him originally.

MS PATEL: Did you bring this to anyones attention when you noticed that there was a firearm on the body that was not there before?

MR MBELO: No, I never brought this to anyones attention.

MS PATEL: Would you care to explain why not, Mr Mbelo?

MR MBELO: Your Honour, the photographs were produced during the Weaver Trial and we had already given our statements regarding this matter.

MS PATEL: Were the photographs shown to you at the Weaver Trial?

MR MBELO: Yes, we were shown the photos and we were asked to confirm as to these other men who were shot on that day.

MS PATEL: Why did you then not, at that stage, inform the court or your superior that that photograph is not a true reflection of what, in fact, had taken place on that day?

MR MBELO: You, Chairperson, as I have previously mentioned that the evidence given in the Weaver Trial was not true and thus I did not point out that this man was not actually lying in the original position and the weapon was not there initially.

MS PATEL: Are you now also saying to us that the body had been moved from the position that it was in when he was shot and killed?

MR MBELO: The body was not removed from where it was, but there was nothing on his body when he died. I am talking about the firearm placed during the photo session. When I left him there was no firearm on his body.

ADV MOTATA: Mr Mbelo, you said you first shot Mlifie and subsequently somebody said something nasty and he shot him in the stomach. Was he lying in the same position as we see him on the photograph with the weapon on his stomach?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.

MS PATEL: So, then the position that you refer to is the positioning of the weapon, not of the body?

MR MBELO: Your Honour, I am talking about the firearm, not the bodies position.

MS PATEL: Are you then also saying, Mr Mbelo, that the reason you did not bring this to anyones attention was because you knew that the entire operation was a sham, that is had been planned the way it is being brought out here today and that it did not really make a difference at the end of the day whether the weapon was planted there or not or for you to bring it to anyones attention, because you, together with the rest of the people who were involved in the operation, had already, by agreement, whether tacitly or not, had agreed that these men were going to be ambushed and killed?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MS PATEL: There is just one last point then, Mr Mbelo, and, once again, my colleague, Mr Williams, Brent Williams, has dealt with this, but perhaps you can to this Committee why exactly you are applying for amnesty? What is your main motivation? I am motivated by the fact that I made a mistake, I shot an unarmed person and I did this under orders and also I was serving the Government and trying to maintain the Government of the day as well in power, to keep it in power.

MS PATEL: What are your views now on the Government?

MR MBELO: The present Government, I feel very ashamed as to the role I played in delaying the efforts of the liberation fighters to bring the liberation that we have today.

MS PATEL: How does one know that you are sincere, Mr Mbelo, that you are not here just to get amnesty so that you will not be charged for the crime, the heinous crime that you have committed?

MR MBELO: I am saying this from the depth of my heart, your Honour.

ADV MOTATA: Mr Mbelo, when you were employed by the South African Police, what was the understanding of your job, to prevent crime or to support the previous Government, what was your impression then?

MR MBELO: When I joined the police force, the aim was to fight crime.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions for this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you re-examination or ...

MR P WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, with your permission, just a few questions I would like to clear up with the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Well (...indistinct) anyway, would you prefer that we adjourn till then and you can (...indistinct) your questions.

MR P WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, I do not think I will be longer than five to seven minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I am going to adjourn till 02H15 anyway, (...indistinct) finish in seven minutes.

MS PATEL: Mr Chair, ...

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct) you will not prevent the adjournment.

MS PATEL: Mr Chairperson, perhaps before you, it is me, sorry, perhaps, before you make that decision, may I bring to your attention that the witness has now acquired legal representation, I have been asked to place on record that his council is, unfortunately, involved in a trial, he is not able to come here today. His request, however, is that the matter then be postponed to a time where we can mutually arrange a date.

CHAIRPERSON: We now have a request from the advocate who is going to, I understand he is, the potential witness has been given legal aid and an advocate has been appointed and can we then place on record that that advocate has indicated that he is not available to appear here at the present time, but would request an adjournment of the proceedings to a date to be arranged to enable him to take proper instructions from his client and, I imagine, to familiarise himself with the evidence that has been led. Is that the position.

MS PATEL: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems to me a perfectly reasonable request in the circumstances. I do not know if any of the other legal practitioners would like to comment on it, but if we all know who the potential witness is and his evidence would, I imagine, take quite a long time and would require a, if it is done properly, a thorough research into the previous history. So, very well then, we will continue and try to finish these proceedings now.

How many minutes did you say, because I was told that the last questioner was going to take five minutes?

MR P WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, I can tell you I will be no longer than five minutes. May I proceed, Mr Chairman. Thank you.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR P WILLIAMS:

MR P WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, in the process I have just lost a page. I have been ...

Mr Mbelo, I cannot find the page now, but my learned colleague, Mr Williams, referred you to a page with your testimony at the Section 29 hearings where you allegedly mentioned that the fact why you preferred Vlakplaas is because you use to have regular braais and parties.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 375.

MR P WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Is that why you preferred to be based at Vlakplaas rather than at an ordinary police station?

MR MBELO: No, that is not the reason.

MR P WILLIAMS: Can you tell the Committee what is the reason why you were, why you preferred Vlakplaas?

MR MBELO: It is because Vlakplaas was different from other branches. We tried to rehabilitate all men who came from across the borders and, but all these things use to happen there.

MR P WILLIAMS: Now, Mr Mbelo, on ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, perhaps we should have another bit on record. The passage at 375 which you were referred to earlier, said

Do you remember that? Do you remember that was put to you?

MR MBELO: Yes, your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: And you explained at page 376, line ten,

Is that also true?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir, but in other branches such things were not available. It would take time before you can go anywhere with your work or travelling.

MR P WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Mr Mbelo, in paragraph nine of your application, that is page 238, you say that,

Now, is the actual reason why you preferred Vlakplaas that you had these kind of morale builders, which was absent at normal police stations?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, your Honour.

MR P WILLIAMS: And, then just two last questions, how ... (intervention).

MS KHAMPEPE: Before you proceed, Mr Williams, Mr Mbelo, how do you know that that was the purpose of the visit by Mr Adriaan Vlok and others? How do you come to that conclusion?

MR MBELO: When Mr Adriaan Vlok was around he use to encourage us and tell us about the good work that we were doing as members of Vlakplaas. He was encouraging us with our good work.

MR P WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

The second-last question, at the time when you were based at Vlakplaas, how did, and at the time of this specific incident, what was your attitude towards the ANC and to people aligned to the ANC?

MR MBELO: During those years whilst I was in Vlakplaas, I was an enemy and also regarded the ANC as an enemy and also it was an enemy towards my colleagues, especially my colleagues on Vlakplaas, because we were working with ex-MK members and there were many of them.

MR P WILLIAMS: And then my very last question. What is your political motive for participating in this particular incident or for being part of this incident?

MR MBELO: The political motivation for taking part in this particular event is because I was working for a group led by the Government of the day and the duty of Vlakplaas was to keep the past Government in power and to ensure that the liberation movements do not overthrow it at all.

MR P WILLIAMS: I have got no further questions, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE MILLER: Mr Mbelo, you said that prior to shooting Mr Mlifie you threw him to the ground, is that correct?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, your Honour.

JUDGE MILLER: Then you received, what you say, was an order to shoot him and you then shot him. Could, how far away were you from him when you shot him and was he still on the ground at the time of the shooting?

MR MBELO: Chairperson, he was still on the ground and I was very close to him. I would say I was right on top of him. That is how near I was to him or how close.

JUDGE MILLER: And on what part of the body did you shoot him?

MR MBELO: Chairperson, I shot him on the left-hand side of his head.

JUDGE MILLER: And were you of the opinion that your shot was deadly, was fatal, that you killed him?

MR MBELO: Your Honour, I am not sure whether I killed him instantly or not. Up till this day I am not sure.

JUDGE MILLER: Why do you think that that Sergeant that you were a bad shot if you were standing over him, such a close range and you hit him in the head?

MR MBELO: I do not know why. Perhaps, it is because he had, he was not dead yet.

JUDGE MILLER: Can you think of any reason why that Sergeant, himself, then shot Mr Mlifie in the stomach?

MR MBELO: I do not have any other reason that I can think of.

JUDGE MILLER: Yes.

ADV MOTATA: Mr Mbelo, at what stage did you disarm him, whilst he was standing or lying on the ground?

MR MBELO: I did this whilst he was lying on the ground.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Mbelo, you have testified that Mr Odendal, who was the most senior, in the morning of the third of March, when instructions were given to execute the operation, you testified yesterday that Mr Odendal made no mention to the words like "take out" or "sweep". Is that still your evidence?

MR MBELO: That is still my evidence, your Honour.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MS KHAMPEPE: You remember the evidence that you gave during the Section 29 hearing in which you stated that you were given clear, chrystally clear instructions at Wingfield, as a group, that these people were not to be arrested, but were to be killed. Do you remember that kind of evidence that you gave during your Section 29 hearing?

MR MBELO: Chairperson, I remember, but not very clearly. I said this, because Mr Odendal said that as soon as they raise their arms or they produce their arms, you should fight back. That is what Mr Odendal said.

MS KHAMPEPE: Can you page to 321, Mr Mbelo. I just need clarity whether this is, in fact, what you said. You were quoted as saying, I think there is a question or a statement which is being put to you by Adv Potgieter.

MR MBELO: It is so.

MS KHAMPEPE: Do you see your response and just go to line 24? Do you see your response there too?

MR MBELO: I see it very clearly, your Honour.

MS KHAMPEPE: So, are you now saying that even though he did not say you must sweep these people into their graves or take them out, he nevertheless gave you the impression that you had to kill them?

MR MBELO: He did not give the orders or instructions to, that they should be killed, but all the people who played a role or key role players in that meeting or, perhaps, to call them the owners of the meeting, people like Mr Bellingan were coming from them, that these people should be removed. Even when we were approaching the intersection of these streets we knew exactly what was going to happen to these people.

MS KHAMPEPE: Okay, I will leave that one. Can you turn to page 247 of your affidavit. Now, at paragraph 22 you state that you are aware that Jimmy and Eric had weapons in their possession and that at the time when they fled, they left the weapons in the bush. How do you know this?

MR MBELO: I knew this after the event when I met with Jimmy and Eric in Koeberg.

MS KHAMPEPE: Is that what they told you after the event?

MR MBELO: That is so. I remember clearly when Jimmy asked Mr Bellingan as to whether he found those weapons where they had put them.

MS KHAMPEPE: But was that made clear to you by Mr Mbane that this was the position as reflected here in your affidavit?

MR MBELO: Yes, I got this from Mr Mbane.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now, you were sent to infiltrate this group through a certain person by the name of Sipho, that you ended up sharing a cell with at Guguletu Police Station?

MR MBELO: Yes, your Honour.

MS KHAMPEPE: And as a result of the information you obtained from Sipho you were able to visit the brother?

MR MBELO: Yes, your Honour.

MS KHAMPEPE: I just want to get some information. What is it that you said to Sipho's brother that made him to immediately take you to the group in question?

MR MBELO: I said to Sipho's brother I was being held with his brother in the cells, because I was suspected of throwing a hand grenade and I further told him that there was no clear evidence, thus my lawyer managed to release me and I was on my way to tell the freedom fighters in the Western Cape that the person who was supposed to bring them arms was shot in the Western Transvaal and thus he cannot come and, therefore, I had substituted him.

MS KHAMPEPE: And when you were taken to that group, how many people did you find there?

MR MBELO: When I arrived there there were about 20 men in a house, inside the house and what I realised, most of them believed in Rastafarian belief.

MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you, Mr Mbelo.

ADV MOTATA: Mr Mbelo, just something that emanated from my sister here, that Major Odendal and Lieutenant Liebenberg would have been the seniors in the Western Cape or in the Peninsula and we look at Sergeant Bellingan, would have been a junior, would I be right?

MR MBELO: Chairperson, yes, it is so.

ADV MOTATA: Now, if orders were to be given, amongst the three, who had to be listened to?

MR MBELO: According to their ranks, it would be the eldest, your Honour. That would be Mr Odendal.

CHAIRPERSON: By the eldest there do you mean the most senior?

MR MBELO: I am referring to the ranks, Sir.

ADV MOTATA: Now, when you were sent from Vlakplaas with your colleague, Sergeant Bellingan, were you to take over or work under Major Odendal and Lieutenant Liebenberg?

MR MBELO: Chairperson, we were under our commanders in Vlakplaas. They were taking instructions, Mr Bellingan would listen to what Mr Liebenberg instructed.

ADV MOTATA: Let us take an instance of the meeting at Wingfield. You were all there, is it not so, with Liebenberg, at least?

MR MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.

ADV MOTATA: And, please help me, my impression at this moment is that instructions were given there and not separately, like for instance, if you were to be called aside by Bellingan?

MR MBELO: Yes, instructions were given in this one meeting, your Honour, but it happened that after the meeting there was murmuring to the effect that, everybody was aware how police were being attacked and everybody should see how they defend themselves.

MS KHAMPEPE: But there were instructions from Mr Odendal as to what had to happen in the execution of the operation and yesterday you told us what a good cop was. That a good cop was the one who acted in accordance with the instructions given by his senior.

MR MBELO: Your Honour, it is true, but in this situation and in the meeting held in Wingfield, Mr Odendal said his bit, but after his, after this, when the security branch was given a chance to say its bit, they gave their own orders as we were different units there and stated it clearly to us that these men were heavily armed and dangerous. One other thing which I have already mentioned in my application is that Mr Bellingan and Mr Liebenberg were having problems with certain individuals in Guguletu and it was rumoured that if these people can be removed from Guguletu and they were also attacking the Wit Doeke, so if they can be removed, Guguletu will be peaceful and quiet.

MS KHAMPEPE: So, you actually acted on rumours, you did not act on the instructions of Mr Odendal? That is what you are telling us?

MR MBELO: No, your Honour, I did not follow rumours, that is what we were told, because after our meeting we stood aside and we were told that, boys, this is the time to remove these men, because this has been long planned and we had to find these people or get them.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand the evidence, Major Odendal was not a member of the Security Police, although he was in charge of this operation, is that so?

MR MBELO: Mr Odendal, I do not know which branch was he representing, but on Security Branch side was represented by Mr Liebenberg.

MS KHAMPEPE: But, you know, I have a problem with this particular piece of evidence, Mr Mbelo, because in your application you make it quite abundantly clear that the instructions were not to arrest the members of the group and you say this, you do not qualify it as this having been a private instructions from Mr Bellingan and not only in this case, but you had an opportunity to give evidence before the people who were conducting the Section 29 hearing and you still insisted that no instructions, I mean, specific instructions were given to take them out and sweep them whilst you had congregated as a group of policemen.

Now you are saying there was a private meeting after general instructions had been given by Mr Odendal in which such words like "take them out" or "sweep" were used. I am finding it very difficult to understand what you are trying to tell us.

MR MBELO: Chairperson, in this meeting of ours Mr Odendal said his bit as stating that we must prevent the attack on this Kombi. He did not mention anything about arresting these people, but stressed that we must prevent this attack. The members of our branch commented on what was being planned and they came up with the words that these people must be wiped or removed.

CHAIRPERSON: I do not think we can continue longer, we will have to take the adjournment now and then we can continue. I had hoped we would finish, but it appears we will not. We will now take an adjournment till half past two.

MS PATEL: Would everyone please rise?

ON RESUMPTION:

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: (Still under oath).

CHAIRPERSON: Has anybody got any further questions arising out of what has been put? Why was I not told this at 20 to two? Well, I am sorry to have got you all back here, but we will now adjourn then ... (intervention).

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, may I just, perhaps, one aspect. It was apparent yesterday when my learned friend, Ms Patel, led the evidence or questioned the first applicant, Mr Bellingan, that the, what she put about the evidence of Jimmy Mbane that it went a lot wider than what is contained in his statement and one does not want to have a situation where you hear a lot of evidence and then once again we have got to say to your Lordship we need an adjournment now to consult about this. I wonder if it would not be practical to obtain, in the form of a statement, those additional aspects and then we can, at least, prepare adequately, consult adequately and it would not necessary to waste more time.

CHAIRPERSON: I do not know if the additional aspects came as a result of a statement or merely as a result of a consultation.

MS PATEL: It came as a result of the consultation for which I requested a postponement, if my learned colleague will remember.

MR BOOYENS: No, I appreciate that, M'Lord, but what I am suggesting is, perhaps, those, the fact of that consultation can be put in writing, in the form of a statement, if possible, and then we will waste less time, but I think it is entirely up to my learned friend.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, before, I think it is extremely probable that before we meet again we will have seen a transcript of the evidence. Could we leave it on the basis that once that is so, that if there are any matters in the transcript which you think you would like further information about, you can communicate with Ms Patel or if she notices anything that she thinks further, that you should be given an opportunity of preparing, she will notify you.

Before we, well, I propose now to adjourn to a date to be arranged and I would urgently request the council and attorneys to consult now with Mr Martin Coetzee with a view to, if possible, arranging a date now while they are all here and I hope they all have their diaries. I would estimate we would require at least another three days. Do you think three is safe? You are not binding yourself to go longer, but if we ...

MR BOOYENS: I think it is, M'Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: If you could tell Mr Coetzee that and ask him to fix three days.

I mentioned also the matter of possibly hearing the rest of the matters involving the applicant, but I am told that, I do not know quite where he gets his information from, that there are about 20 to 24 other people involved. So, its, be not just the matter of setting down the applicants hearings and saying, well, we will deal with those in a few days. It is a question of juggling around. You might mention it to Mr Coetzee and see, Mr Booyens, if you and he agree which matters require a hearing and which can be disposed of. There may be some that, technically, require a hearing, but we will only take a few, shorter time. If you could discuss that with him, because I would like to do them all at once. I do not think it is right, fair on the applicant that he should be required to present himself here ten times.

MR BOOYENS: I will do that, M'Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Very well, this matter will now be adjourned to a date to be arranged.

I see that I have been overheard in what I said, so you will not have to explain why you have come to see him, he is standing there waiting for you and will not let you go without talking to him.