Amnesty Hearings

M BELLINGAN (CONT)

CHAIRPERSON: For the record it is Thursday, 15 April 1999. It is the continuation of the amnesty application of Mr Michael Bellingan. We apologise for the fact that we are starting slightly later than usual, but that is due to difficulties which are not of the making of the applicant, in arranging for Advocate Hattingh to consult with the applicant as he was authorised to do at the end of the day yesterday.

Mr Hattingh, I assume that you have no managed to get through?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, thank you for the indulgence and the time. We are ready to proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Then, Mr Bellingan, I remind you that you are still under oath.

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, any re-examination?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman. ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, I just want to at this stage, just before my learned friend starts with his cross-examination, put the following on record. We've been handed a document, a document containing notes made by Mr Bellingan. We've been told that this note will be used during the re-examination of Mr Bellingan. At this stage we do not want to merely object against the note, we just would like to place two concerns on record. The first concern is, and I must immediately point out that I haven't been able to read through the document, I could, well some portions of it I could read, others I just couldn't make out what is stated here so I don't really know what exactly is stated in some of these paragraphs. But the two concerns that we have are the following: The first one is, from a reading of the bits that I can make out there seems to be contained legal argument. If, and I think I would just like to emphasise this and ask my learned friend to take it into account, that he should stay away from legal argument as far as possible. I just think if we spends, if Mr Bellingan especially, spends too much time on legal argument, whether it's legal argument or whether it's argument on how, on the record, on the evidence as to what evidence should be accepted or how evidence should be interpreted, that that's a matter for argument and that we shouldn't waste time on that. I just would place that concern on record and that everyone should be alive to that issue.

The second concern that we have is that we all know that there's always a temptation for lawyers in re-examination to lead a witness, to put leading questions to a witness. Insofar as the contents of this document may actually be another form of putting a leading question to Mr Bellingan, that he actually reads what is suggested in his own note, that should also be taken into account. I would also ask my learned friend to be careful as far as that is concerned. It is a bit unusual to put a document like this before a witness, we're not going to object against it in its entirety, but we would like you to take these considerations into account. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, Mr Rautenbach. Are there any other comments on the note which has been furnished to us as well and which the Panel hasn't really read, and which we accepted was an aide memoir really, in a sense, but obviously the concerns that Mr Rautenbach raised are genuine concerns and I assume that Advocate Hattingh, you would be alive to those things. I mean we don't want to hear legal argument and of course I don't need to talk to you about leading questions.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I've taken note, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Under those circumstances, would you then proceed with the re-examination.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Bellingan, you've been on the witness stand now for the better part of six days already during the course of this hearing and with due regard to my own position and my belated entry into this matter there are a few things that I would like to be clarified and to be put into perspective, not only for my own purpose, which is not quite so relevant, but for the purposes of this Committee.

Now to start out yesterday before the lunch break, Mr Chaskalson was in the process of dealing with the issue of financial gain, mostly with regard to the murder incident. This line of questioning was not pursued after lunch and the whole issue was somewhat left in the air. Now with regard to the murder itself, just dealing with the murder, not with the NUMSA matter, and just to clarify the issue, at the time of the incident itself, did financial gain play any role in your planning and/or the execution of the murder?

MR BELLINGAN: Not at all, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Subsequent to the murder there were certain financial benefits accruing to you and/or your children. Just to clarify that issue, why did you allow this financial benefit to accrue to the family as a unit?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I didn't really have a choice because it would have looked extremely funny if I didn't accept these or allow these transactions to take place then, it would have looked extremely strange. It was just sort of incidental things that happened afterwards, I had no knowledge of them prior to that at all.

MR HATTINGH: To which particular actions do you refer when you say

"It would have looked funny"

MR HATTINGH: I'm sorry, Mr Chairman, we have a problem with these earphones.

CHAIRPERSON DISCUSSES PROBLEMS WITH HEADSETS

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, we'll try again and see if there's a problem.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Bellingan, the question was to which actions do you refer when you say:

"It would have looked funny"

... had you not pursued those actions.

MR BELLINGAN: The fact that these pension benefits - the people at the municipality were writing letters etc., etc., Mr Chairman, so it would have looked strange if I didn't then contact them and sort out what needed to be sorted out. And the same with the policies, any of these policies and pensions and these things.

MR HATTINGH: Now with regard to the benefits flowing from those pension funds or the policies, what happened to those funds, how were they channelled?

MR BELLINGAN: To the best of my ability and circumstances that money will all be used for my children, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: There is however, the issue of the amount of money that you gave the instruction for to be released while you were in New Zealand and which then ultimately was paid out to your attorney prior to the bail application, it would appear. What's happened to that money?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct, Mr Chairman, I never got any back from the attorney, so I presume he used it all.

CHAIRPERSON: Hasn't he accounted to you?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't think so, Mr Chairman. He may have sent an account to my wife, but I haven't seen one. I trust him, I don't think he's done anything funny with it, but I've just never seen an account. And for example, he paid the bail and I think he must have collected the money back etc., etc., I don't know, I haven't dealt with ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Which attorney is this?

MR BELLINGAN: It's Mr Leisher(?)

CHAIRPERSON: Is it a local attorney?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman. He may very well have - I know my wife has been in touch with him, he may very well have done that with her, but I don't know about that. I presume the money has been used up on legal matters.

CHAIRPERSON: Because if I understand the position correctly, that money is strictly speaking the money of your children and that money hasn't reached your children at all, it seems to me now.

MR BELLINGAN: As I tried to explain yesterday, Mr Chairman, how it, if it is so that that money is all used up and hasn't been reinvested for the children per se, then according to my conscience how I deal with that is that the annuity which is paid to me every year and which is immediately reinvested into a policy for the children, causes me a tax obligation of about R3-4 000, possibly a little bit more, maybe even as much as R5 000 every year. So already that would have been R20 000 since I've been in prison, so it's all going back to the children in that sense. But I certainly am going to get to the bottom of all these financial things and make sure that my children get every cent that is due to them, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it appears to me as if that is the proper course to take.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes. I can give this Committee the guarantee that that will definitely happen and I will invite the legal resources as well to discuss this matter with me at a certain point when it's appropriate.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, that appears to be sensible. And it also appears from these documents that the benefits which one could have argued, accruing to the children through the further policies that were taken out, that has fallen away because those seem to have been ceded to your present wife.

MR BELLINGAN: I would very much like to attend to that all as a matter of urgency, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BELLINGAN: And I believe that it is necessary to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it might not strictly speaking be within the ambit of what duty we are charged with, but it does strike one as necessary, especially if you're dealing with young children like that.

MR BELLINGAN: I appreciate the Committee's concern, thank you, Mr Chairman.

ADV BOSMAN: If I may just follow up - I'm sorry, Mr Chairman, if I interrupted you.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no.

ADV BOSMAN: If I may just follow up. Mr Bellingan, can you just indicate what was the basis for this cession of the policy to your wife, was it ceded in consideration of monies she lent you or what was the basis of the cession?

MR BELLINGAN: It's a little awkward to say it all, Mr Chairman, but there was no basis. There was no basis, other than the fact that I felt coerced to do it at that point in time.

ADV BOSMAN: So a cancellation of the cession would certainly, or a retraction would certainly cause no legal problems then?

MR BELLINGAN: It shouldn't cause any legal problems, but if there are legal problems about it, then I'm prepared to follow it up.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR BELLINGAN: And in fact I've already looked at that matter, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: If I understood you correctly, it seems to have been a measure that you took in order to get some protection against potential sort of action by creditors, claims.

MR BELLINGAN: That's correct, it was the remarks of Mr Nott's colleague at the time in Court and then also remarks of my present wife, those two combined. When such a document is presented to one in the courtroom and you're sitting in the dock, I was under a lot of pressure and I signed it. I don't think it's a valid session, but I would like it to be sorted out very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, we do understand that.

MR BELLINGAN: If the Committee makes such a finding at the end of the day, I would also appreciate that, if it's at all possible, but I would like to very much take it up with Legal Resources Centre in order to get these things sorted out and make sure that my children get that money.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much. Sorry, Advocate Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Bellingan, it's clear that the Committee has a concern about this issue, would it be necessary to just go further and explain to the Committee as to what problems you are experiencing at the moment in channelling the funds to your children?

MR BELLINGAN: I wouldn't necessarily like to go into more detail now unless it's absolutely necessary, Mr Chairman, it's a little sensitive at the moment.

MR HATTINGH: Okay. However, with regard to the

R45 000 paid to the attorney you did not receive any, my understanding of your evidence is that you received nothing from that money back.

MR BELLINGAN: I received nothing back, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Okay. Now with regard to the possible motive in respect of the NUMSA matter, for your doing what you did, at the time when the account was opened in March 1989, was there any personal financial gain? Did that play a part as motive for you opening the account?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman, not at all.

MR HATTINGH: From the evidence it would appear that anything between R30 000 and R90 000 went through that account and it would also appear that cash withdrawals to the tune of approximately R31 000 were performed during the course of the life of that account of five months.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman - that is the two accounts combined. The R312 is the withdrawals that I made.

MR HATTINGH: Now you have to assist me in this regard as to the allegations if any, that were made during that period of a luxurious lifestyle and money or a spending spree that you perhaps may have gone on, spending ...

CELLPHONE RINGS CONTINUOUSLY

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that should be a warning.

MR HATTINGH: A simple calculation tells us that

R30-odd thousand rand divided by five months gives you approximately R6 000 per month. Now I want you to assist me in this regard, to the extent that you can just explain or tell or refer this Committee to any evidence or suggestion of you spending that kind of money during that period.

MR BELLINGAN: No such thing at all, Mr Chairman. Throughout the lengthy investigation, throughout the inquest, throughout the trial, throughout these proceedings for that matter, there's absolutely no evidence of a lavish lifestyle because I never led a lavish lifestyle, Mr Chairman. In fact in my wife's own letter to her attorney, on page, I think it's 101 or 109, she refers, in Mr Trengove’s bundle, she refers to or complains about the fact that this for a man who's never got any money to spend on things. So there was no lavish lifestyle, Mr Chairman, and the cheques and the stubs that I got people are quite welcome to go through. The building alterations etc., that I made are based on taking further bonds etc., etc. I've got all the documents over here. And I presume we're going to give the Committee ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Yes, if you would proceed and tell the Committee with regard to the documentation, the allegation was also made, apart from the lavish lifestyle, that the application or the tender for the farm or government property in Natal was approximately during the course of that period and that you may have required cash or money to enter into that venture.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman. Perhaps we should just get that because I promised the Committee a copy of that, of those forms in February. That was on page 890 to 891 of the record, which is in my notes. The reference to the record is 890 to 891. And what I had said then is slightly out because I've subsequently got hold of the documentation of this venture between my father and my sister and myself. The tender papers are dated the 8th of September 1989, there is a letter from the Natal Provincial Administration to my father, and we had to put down a 10% deposit with the tender I see, which was paid back to my dad, because he put, he drew the R14 000 from his building society, attached the cheque and then we submitted that with the tender. And on this document, on page 5 of the document there is a paragraph referring to, it says here

"In the event of the purchaser electing to pay the balance of the purchase price off over 9 years"

... etc., etc., etc. I said 10 years, it's in fact 9 years, Mr Chairman, so I was a little out there.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, this document will be handed in. We haven't got copies at this stage but this document will then be handed in as Exhibit L.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR HATTINGH: Copies will be made available.

MR BELLINGAN: As far as what I'd said in how I came to have the house in Gallo Manor, Mr Chairman, if there was any suggestion that that was somehow lavish then here my documents are with regard to the purchase of the land that I bought in Buccleugh in Sandton, which I bought for R262-thousand and then sub-divided and built a house on one and sold the other half for R37 000. I built the house myself.

Then when I sold that I bought the house in Gallo Manor and I paid R932-thousand for that. My bond then was R70 000. By the time I had done the various building alterations which - the application for the plans are amongst these documents over here, my bond was up to R120 000, Mr Chairman. The value of the alterations is also reflected on the approval forms from the Town Council of Sandton over here with all the details of the building alterations.

Than obviously in the course of time, it's a capital asset, it grew in value due to building costs, inflation or whatever, and then I finally sold it for - that's not here, but it was around, it was less than what I wanted, it was around R280 000 in 1991, when Janine and I were going to buy the other house in the area.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just ask here, the property, was it jointly owned by you and Janine or was it your sole property?

MR BELLINGAN: It was my sole property, Mr Chairman. The lavish lifestyle just never happened at all, Mr Chairman. You can see here, here and there there are some cheques for things like plants purchased at nurseries and things like that. There were little things like that, but there was nothing lavish about it, Mr Chairman. These cheques are very small, there's cheques for R18, for cash and some building equipment that I purchased etc., etc. And then also, in my amnesty application in one of the schedules, for the moment I don't know which one, but it is mentioned there that I did do some work on the side for Military Intelligence, for which I received a cash payment. And also, Mr Chairman, the fact that obviously I rented out the cottage on the property as well. So I received money from that as well. My disposable income wasn't just the R1 700-odd, that pay slip which I handed in or showed Advocate Trengrove at that time, it was quite a lot more than that.

And then I also had friends in the business and in return for me doing certain assessments, personnel and certain of their management things for them, I also got back things like, for example I see my plans were drawn up for these alterations by someone that I did some work for on the side, a Mr Core(?). And then as far as getting paint and things like that is concerned, a little bit of work for some people and then get some paint at cost price or for nothing or whatever. So I struggled through these building alterations, doing a lot of the work myself and making do with what I could get.

MR HATTINGH: The documents referring to the various properties that you purchased and sold, those can be marked Annexure M, perhaps all the documents in M marked from M1 to whatever those documents are. I would now wish to turn to the document, the discussion document which we find in bundle 1, on pages 8 to 13 as well as from 14 to 22, and I would like first to deal with the status of this document and then to the explanation for the existence of this document.

It is at this stage common cause that you signed an amnesty application the 8th of October 1996, which found its way to Cape Town through the hands of Mr Kjellberg.

MR BELLINGAN: Correct, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: And it's also further now common cause that this first document, the application, even though it refers, on page 5 thereof under paragraph 11(b), it refers to annexure, that at that time when it was handed to Mr Kjellberg it did not contain an annexure.

MR BELLINGAN: I agree with that, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: It was then put to you that sometime towards the end of November/early December, there was a further meeting with Mr Kjellberg.

MR BELLINGAN: Correct, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: And that during that meeting apparently the discussion document was given to Mr Kjellberg, which he then forwarded to Cape Town and which was then received in Cape Town on the 12th of December 1996. Now just firstly your comments with regard to this discussion document being handed to Mr Kjellberg on that date, or towards the end of November/early December, what are your comments?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't deny that I did indeed give it to Mr Kjellberg, Mr Chairman, exactly when I'm not too sure, but I know that on the 10th of October, Mr Kjellberg was at the prison, when he actually collected the document, the skeleton application which I had signed on the 8/10th, but at that stage there was nothing about this discussion document.

MR HATTINGH: At this stage, when I refer to the discussion document I refer to pages 8 to 13 of the bundle number 1, which is a typed version. Just to confirm, this typed version, was this version ever handed in? This form being typed, was it ever handed to Mr Kjellberg?

MR BELLINGAN: Not by me ever, Mr Chairman, no. I don't - the only time I've seen that typed document or the first time I've seen it was in I think February, just prior to Mr Chaskalson visiting prison, when I found it in the bundle.

MR HATTINGH: So what you handed to Mr Kjellberg at that stage, what was it then?

MR BELLINGAN: That was my hand-written notes, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Have you got it with you at the moment?

MR BELLINGAN: I've got some of it with me, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: The original one thereof?

MR BELLINGAN: I think it was handed out on Monday, the original yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now at that stage in your dealings with the people from the TRC, I understand your evidence to be that you handed them some notes - perhaps I should just ask you first, were there any photocopying facilities available to you in the prison?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: So when you handed notes to people or agents from the TRC, would that be in the original or a copy form?

MR BELLINGAN: No, that would be an original. I might also just add that I don't want to create the wrong impression, it may very well be that I gave these notes to someone other than Mr Kjellberg of the TRC, maybe not to him. I don't recall exactly, it was 22 years ago, Mr Chairman, but I gave it to someone at the TRC - my hand-written notes, no photocopies, no typed notes from myself.

MR HATTINGH: Now on previous occasions when you handed the original notes to people from the TRC, whoever they may have been at the time, what happened to those notes? - the original notes.

MR BELLINGAN: They would be returned to me, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: What happened to this original note, the discussion document, the original hand-written note, after you had given it either to Mr Kjellberg or anyone else from the TRC?

MR BELLINGAN: It appears that at least part of it I got back. At least part of it was returned to me by the TRC, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know when or under what circumstances?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I can't remember, Mr Chairman. This thing fizzled, it kind of died a natural death, this discussion document of mine, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Then if we turn to Exhibit B, that is a report from Mr Kjellberg - I've marked mine from page 1 to 8, this report is dated the 15th of January 1997.

MR BELLINGAN: I don't doubt that is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Good. Now I would first refer you to page 2 and the paragraph in the middle of that page under the heading

"Contacts with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission"

Reference is made to a number of meetings which had been held with representatives from the TRC, what would that have been?

MR BELLINGAN: I agree with that, Mr Chairman, there were a number of meetings, mostly requests that the TRC had, apropos information that they believed I had.

MR HATTINGH: And that the first meeting was held on the 1st of August 1996, do you agree to that?

MR BELLINGAN: It could very well be, I don't have any reason to doubt it, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: And that seven meetings were held during the course of the period from 1st of August 1996 until such time as this report was prepared on the 15th of January 1997?

MR BELLINGAN: It could be true, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: And the last sentence in that paragraph says

"On the various issued, Mr Bellingan has been asked to write a summary of his knowledge or to hand over documentation that he had access to, which may be relevant to the particular issue under discussion."

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And it also states that

"A list described in the documents produced by Mr Bellingan is also included to this document."

MR BELLINGAN: Correct.

MR HATTINGH

"Copies of these documents have been forwarded to the National Unit in Cape Town."

MR BELLINGAN: Correct, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Now apart from the reference to an amnesty application, on page 4, the top half of this page, and having due regard to the list of documents following on pages 5, 6, 7 and 8, is there any reference to your discussion document being handed in as your amnesty application or annexure to the amnesty application?

MR BELLINGAN: Not at all in Mr Kjellberg's notes here, in Exhibit B, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: On page 4, the middle of the page, the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph it's stated

"The further details could be read in the amnesty application."

Just to clarify this particular issue, it's not quite clear to me whether this is something which Mr Kjellberg stated as being that he is in possession of this document and the reader of this report could go to the application and read the balance of the information, or whether you told Mr Kjellberg that he could read the balance of the information in the application.

MR BELLINGAN: It's not clear to the reader of the document, Mr Chairman, but it may be that there was a misunderstanding.

MR HATTINGH: What was the position?

MR BELLINGAN: From my side I would say yes, the amnesty application is to come, because this is January so the further details will be read in the amnesty, will be read, could be read in the amnesty application which, obviously that would refer then to the annexure to the amnesty application which was still to come. If Mr Kjellberg had then gotten hold of this other document and somehow seen that at this point in time as the annexure, then there's a huge misunderstanding, or there was for him anyway.

MR HATTINGH: Just for clarity, on this page 4 ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, I'm sorry to interrupt, but when the re-examination started that was one of my concerns, we've just had an example of that. There's now - we have the witness analysing the report by Mr Kjellberg and then venture an argument to you as to what it means and what it doesn't mean and this is the type of thing that I have tried to forewarn my learned friend about. I just want to - I'm not objecting to it, I'm just saying at this stage that this is the type of thing, please guard against the witness giving argument to the Committee about what a document means and what the evidence means and what the witness means. It's clearly the type of situation one envisages when the parties finally argue as to what was meant by certain documents. As it pleases you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Rautenbach. I think it's just a position that is being placed on record, there is no formal objection. But I assume, as I had accepted in the beginning, that you alert to this sort of thing.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, the idea was not to commence argument at this stage. If it appeared to be the position, that was not my intention.

Mr Bellingan, what I want to gain from you at this stage is merely the facts, no argument as such. I just want you to read on page 4, from the top until the next heading concerning Mr Bellingan's, of Mrs Bellingan's letter to the TRC. Just read through the four paragraphs, yourself, on your own, just read through it. Now I don't want to lead you, but I wanted to know from you - now perhaps I went too quickly over this, the remark, the last sentence in paragraph 2:

"The further details could be read in the amnesty application"

In the context of this section of the report from Mr Kjellberg, could you just explain that to us?

MR BELLINGAN: It's obvious then that there was some discussion on the discussion document. If one just goes two sentences before that, Mr Chairman, where it says

"He then suggested that they should ..."

etc., etc., etc. Then in the context of that there must have been some discussion. And then what my advocate's asking:

"The further details could be read in the amnesty application"

That obviously refers to a formal amnesty application, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it seems to refer to an existing entity. This report seems to be just a sort of a, an indication of the thrust of the explanation of the incident, which appears in an existing entity, which this reporter refers to. So there appears to have been some document in existence at that time when this was prepared, which would have contained the full particulars of this incident which the report simply summarises some aspects about.

MR BELLINGAN: Or alternatively, Mr Chairman, the skeleton application and then discussions on that, perhaps based on the discussion document pending the filling in of an amnesty application. But I see your point, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in any event ...

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Bellingan, bear in mind that we're at this stage dealing with the status of this document and not the existence of this document. If we could turn to the letter from the TRC, which was shown to you yesterday by Mr Chaskalson, the letter dated the 1st August 1997, which letter has not yet been handed in but which will be then marked Annexure N. With regard to the status of this discussion document, whether it was hand-written or subsequently typed, what are your comments with regard to Annexure N then, this letter from the TRC, dated 1st August '97?

MR BELLINGAN: I think that this accurately reflects the position as I understood it to be, Mr Chairman, the fact that the annexure did not accompany the application. Bearing in mind this is August 1997 and that they're requesting my attorneys to get me to specify all of the details, the fleshing out of the amnesty application in fact. That's an accurate reflection of the situation, Mr Chairman, with respect, to my actual amnesty application.

MR HATTINGH: At the time that this letter was dated and written, the 1st of August 1997, in your mind was there or was there not an annexure to your skeleton application? - in existence.

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman, there was no annexure that I intended or that I knew about or that was brought to my attention at all.

MR HATTINGH: The question is, as being an annexure to your skeleton application for amnesty.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman. In fact I can remember clearly in the time period from the submission of my, or let's say during, throughout 1997, I was very anxious and I conveyed that anxiety repeatedly to the TRC, in discussions and in letters, etc., etc., that I actually get around to getting this done. I complained to the SAP as well about speeding things up. I phoned my attorneys many times about speeding things up too, to get this thing submitted. But at no stage did the TRC write to me and say there's some type of a problem or bring anything further to my attention about that, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Turning to your discussions with people in an effort to get this sorted out you referred to a transcript of to a meeting with Mr Kjellberg during March of 1997, that was some ...

(end of side A of tape)

MR HATTINGH: ... transcript of this conversation. Could you just tell the Committee how this came about?

MR BELLINGAN: I made the transcript myself, Mr Chairman. I brought it to the attention of my attorney at the commencement of proceedings here in Mayfair, and also to the attention of the TRC at the time. It - I have a habit of tape recording conversations and this I basically did between February and the start of these proceedings, Mr Chairman, in my cell with my mini-cassette recorder and I did this transcript myself. It's, to the best of my ability it's pretty accurate. Where it's not accurate I've said indistinct or whatever the case is.

MR HATTINGH: Now Mr Bellingan, the original tape is available, if you could just confirm the tape. Is this the tape which was made at the time of this discussion with Mr Kjellberg?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes. And my only annotation on it says: "Jan - 97.3.7".

MR HATTINGH: Now obviously the contents of, or the correctness of your transcript itself is not necessarily accepted by any other party and for the benefit of the other parties and for the Committee, we are placing it at the Committee's disposal and we're handing in this tape. Mr Chairman, this tape, would that then be Exhibit 1 or shall we mark it Exhibit O?

CHAIRPERSON: No, somebody must help me, do we have another non-documentary exhibit in this matter or would this be the first one?

MR CHASKALSON: To the best of my recollection this is going to be the first one.

CHAIRPERSON: Then we'll number it Number 1.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chairman, I'm sorry, Cornelius. On what basis is this evidence being tendered? My colleague is busy with re-examination, we are introduced with new evidence now we have not seen. Are we going to be allowed to cross-examine this evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm quite sure that if it is necessary, to enable you to, and anybody else to present their cases fully to us, then of course there should be no objection to you dealing with this matter.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I just think it would have been appropriate for my colleague to request permission for this type of evidence to be introduced during re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well it appears to be not totally irrelevant, the question of the existence or not of more than one amnesty application. So we will allow him to deal with it on that basis and we will also allow any other party to deal with this, with this piece of evidence and any other matter that you want to motivate, flowing from the re-examination. Of course we have the situation with Advocate Hattingh having entered the fray at a fairly late stage, so I wouldn't be surprised if there might be some other issues that we haven't heard of before.

MR CORNELIUS: As the Chairman pleases.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, may I just put on record that the manner in which I'm conducting the re-examination is not the very normal way of doing it, firstly because of my belated entry into this matter and secondly, this is not a Court of law, there's no form of appeal after this and in fact this Committee can make its own rules for the conduct of this hearing. That's clearly set out in the Act and I believe Section 30, if I'm correct. So it's on that basis that I believe that there are relevant issues and it's relevant to bring it to the attention of this Committee. This Committee has the final say about the future of this applicant and if anything is relevant I think it should be submitted, even though it may not be the normal way of doing it, and secondly, I have absolutely no doubt, should that be a case of new evidence, I have no doubt that this Committee will then allow the other parties the opportunity of re-cross-examining the witness on these aspects. On that basis I would like to proceed, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, I think there is little disagreement about the spirit in which the proceedings should be conducted. I think carry on and we'll deal with any other matters as arise.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Okay then Mr Bellingan, Exhibit 1 is the tape recording of your discussions with Mr Kjellberg on the 7th of March 1997. Your transcript which you made to the best of your ability is then a document which was also made available to all concerned as well as the Committee, and this document with permission of the Committee, will then be handed in as exhibit, or Annexure O.

Now dealing with Exhibit O, your transcript of your meeting with Mr Kjellberg, could you just briefly refer to this transcript and show this Committee what you would like to show with regard to this, or indicate, or draw the attention of the Committee with regard to your discussion with Mr Kjellberg on that date.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman. Firstly, on page 3 I talk about - at the top, the M is myself and the J is for Jan, Mr Kjellberg. I discuss over here the fact that I need certain documentation ...

CHAIRPERSON: ... carry on. The hum seems to be bugging us from time to time, but I assume you'll do your best.

MR BELLINGAN: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, Advocate Hattingh, carry on.

MR BELLINGAN: On page 3 where it starts at the counter 040, I say

"In the preparation of my amnesty application ..."

... then I talk further about certain documentation that I've been trying to get hold of. And then towards the bottom I say:

"I sent in a skeleton application, then remember we were going to fill it in with Kobus step by step by step."

That also never happened.

MR HATTINGH: Who was Kobus?

MR BELLINGAN: Kobus was the second attorney that the TRC had arranged for me at that stage via, I think it was Legal Aid. It was Legal Aid. Then I say

"You know Kobus has not been back here, we've never really progressed further."

Jan says:

"No"

His voice intonation there meaning in agreement as in we've never progressed further.

"On that"

I say.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Chairman, I'm just wondering how we get the voice inflection. I would rather if the applicant simply reflected what is in the document and didn't rely on voice inflections.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think there's wisdom in that suggestion. Mr Bellingan, this is a new document, it's new stuff that we're dealing with, so let's try and keep the possible disputes as limited as possible. We want to get this case done.

MR BELLINGAN: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Bellingan, just for clarity, at this stage I want you to deal with this exhibit only to the extent that we are now dealing with the status of the discussion document that forms part of bundle 1, only the status.

MR BELLINGAN: Right.

MR HATTINGH: That's what we're looking at this document for.

MR BELLINGAN: There's only three things that I'd like to point out to the Committee. Then I say further over here on the same page

"It's not exactly the type of thing ...(indistinct) the skeleton. To flesh it out is difficult and to remember stuff over I mean, 20/15 years ago ..."

etc., etc., etc. And then Jan's response, on page 4 he says:

"Ja"

I say:

"So it is a process which needed yourself and Kobus."

He says:

"Ja"

Myself:

"To go through it step by step. It hasn't really happened."

"Ja"

He says.

"I mean he's - I'll see if I can contact him today and see what he's doing uhm, but I think ..."

Then he goes on like that. Then on page 8, Mr Chairman, at counter 106, sort of three quarters of the way down the page, I say:

"But I mean, by the time I've sat with Kobus and yourself and fleshed out the whole thing, I may have mentioned 200 names and that's all background to the murder. So they will all need due notice. It's getting more and more complicated."

Jan says:

"Ja, and knowing that ..."

etc., etc., etc. In other words, he's in agreement. Then on page 11, Mr Chairman, at counter 141, I say:

"Because I received a notification a long time ago, last year, for that skeleton that I submitted."

Jan says:

"Ja, ja"

I say:

"Uhm, so obviously it's right that they've accepted it as such, because other people here have received letters back saying you've neglected to answer this question or that question or whatever. It's urgent, it's with a sense of urgency that four or five people have received such letters here ..."

etc., etc., etc.

The point that I'm making is that Mr Kjellberg is in agreement with me, that I submitted a skeleton application, it needs to be fleshed out, I need to get an attorney to flesh it out, and at no stage during the conversation does he bring to my attention that in fact he's already sent such a fleshing out to the TRC, and at no stage in March had the TRC informed me that they'd received such a thing.

So Jan, during this conversation, only offered me assistance in getting this document fleshed out, never was it brought to my attention that this has apparently already been done. He only offered me assistance in getting that done. So the impression - I mean there wasn't even a question in my mind about this other discussion document then, it never occurred to me that that may have been sent to the TRC by Mr Kjellberg, and also he doesn't bring it to my attention and neither does the TRC.

So the impression I still had, or had in March was just as I've had all along, and that is that my skeleton application needed to be fleshed out with an attorney - there are other references in here too, and to be sent in as a formal submission, Mr Chairman, which in fact did happen.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. We'll take a short adjournment at this stage.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bellingan, you are reminded that you are still under oath.

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: (Cont)

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Bellingan, to conclude the status of the discussion document, Annexure I, the hand-written document of which you are still in possession of the original, does that contain any signature or confirmation or affirmation under oath?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman, neither the hand-written nor the typed one.

MR HATTINGH: Now the next issue is the existence for this document, Exhibit I, would you just explain to the Committee, perhaps once again what the reasons were for your preparation of this document, and in particular paragraph 22 thereof.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, certainly, Mr Chairman. I can also just point out that on these hand-written notes the references from the record are there if anyone wants to look it up, page 42 to 56, page 512, 513, page 348 to 368, page 697 to 701. And then just to get back to ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, perhaps before we carry on with this matter, if I may just then put on record this document and have it marked, explain the nature of this document. It will be marked Annexure P, this is the document with the heading

"A skeleton"

And it contains approximately seven pages of notes made by Mr Bellingan.

The basis on which I would like to, on which this document was made available to everyone concerned was - and I would like to submit to you that in the nature of these proceedings and the extent to which your Committee may make its own rules for the manner in which these proceedings are to be conducted and furthermore in the light of my late entry into this matter and my inability to speak to the applicant and consult with him in a proper fashion prior to yesterday afternoon after I had made my request to do so, after the end of cross-examination and before re-examination, and I may also just put on record that yesterday afternoon we had not more than 10 minutes of opportunity to discuss with client any issues before he was taken away, it was then decided that client would endeavour to give me instructions because he has more knowledge of his application, I have far less knowledge of his application and what was said previously and what is relevant for re-examination or not.

It was suggested that he should go ahead and not write it down, evidence for the purpose of the period of re-examination, but merely to make notes of issues and pages on the record and particular parts that he would like to revisit and give an explanation. Perhaps it may be rightly said that those issues are not quite for the purposes of re-examination, they are perhaps new issues, they may perhaps, may there not be basis to revisit those issues.

But in any event, this document which I personally haven't gone through to see exactly what they contain, but they are the notes made by Mr Bellingan. And I am going to give him the opportunity to tell the Committee whatever he wants to during this period of this meeting, and I will be leading him in this regard, but I'm going to give him the opportunity of bringing to the attention of the Committee various issues. And this is his document prepared for this purpose.

And it's on that basis that we have made it available earlier this morning. I would like to have it marked as Annexure P. And obviously if anyone would like to make an objection to the applicant using his notes that he made last night, then they are at liberty to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that was canvassed when we started off. You seem to be dealing with something else, the reason for the preparation of Annexure I, don't you want to proceed with that.

MR BELLINGAN: All I was indicating, Mr Chairman, is that just to make it easier for everyone, there are references to the record that I found last night, on this particular question I was asked now about Annexure I, what was my intention. And so in the record it's been explained ad nauseam by me, but just to put it concisely what my intention was with this discussion document.

Basically the concerns that I've mentioned for safety of myself and my family, apropos the involvement of people who had quite obviously covered up matters, people unknown to me, apropos a perception of people in the intelligence community as to the fact that I was talking to the TRC, knowing full well that they didn't want me to be doing that.

And having regard to the fact that I was in a prison cell and completely in the dark as to what was going on, the fact that I needed to get information, the fact that I needed to give information in order to keep my credibility as it were, with the TRC Investigating Team at the time. I mean I couldn't just tell a lot of nonsense to them, they wouldn't have come back and seen me, they would have just left it at that. The fact that I had in mind a strategy of allowing my ex-colleagues to say well, Mike is okay, let's not worry about him, he's not really implicating us in anything which is a gross human rights violation.

The matters that I did implicate named people in are things which I was under the impression then would have been sorted out a long time ago in chambers, small little things which would have certainly made my life a lot easier if had it been agreed to, if my ex-colleagues had have remembered those incidents and had have been advised maybe, or decided to apply for amnesty for them it would have made my life a lot easier, but to be faced with an amnesty application cold, whereas I say to Mr Kjellberg in that meeting in March of '97, there's so many names that I could potentially mentioned as a sort of background to the murder of Janine, in the sense of creating the background and so on.

Why go through all of that, Mr Chairman, why go the hassle of an amnesty application which I had in mind was still to come, in other words consultation with an attorney and Mr Kjellberg for that matter, why go through the hassle if everyone is going to say I'm talking rubbish anyway if people aren't going to admit to the fact that these euphemisms were used, that the Security Branch had a particular organisational culture if the TRC then, if the Investigators were of the opinion that no such thing ever happened.

And one can see also from this transcript that Mr Kjellberg agrees with me that when he arrived in South Africa he thought all these things he was hearing in the media are just too far fetched to be true, but by March of '97 already he agrees with me that he's quite convinced that there were these general types of instructions etc., etc. So I was starting to get the kind of feedback that I felt more comfortable with from the TRC, in terms of the fact that they were getting the picture. Then why go through all that hassle when very possibly I could have brought a review, Mr Chairman, for the matter. I didn't have a fair trial, how can one have a fair trial in those circumstances? It's not to say that I wasn't guilty, the two things are mutually exclusive in a sense of the Bill of Rights.

So if there was going to be information coming back, which I could have used also in that sense, if I decided no, it seems unlikely that I should go through the hassle and put everyone through the trauma of an amnesty application, then why don't I just continue with putting together a application for a review of the case, Mr Chairman. So those are the issues that were in my mind at the time that I prepared these documents.

It's not a question that Mr Kjellberg or anyone from the TRC brought me an application form, the application forms were freely available in the prisons. For better or for worse bits and pieces of application forms were there. So the fact that this happens to be sort of numbered according to a schedule or whatever has got nothing to do with the fact that it was, the status of this document was a discussion document and was not intended to be an annexure to my amnesty application. And those are my reasons as to why I embarked upon this particular course of action then, in 1996, Mr Chairman.

I can mention that nothing came of this document, also quite clearly from the transcript. Other than - I did get a little bit of information, it seemed to have some effect, but the document itself, nothing came of it and basically it was dead and buried until it became an issue in February.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Bellingan, the next issue is, the documents that you found that night in the house, that was the 20th of September 1991, what were those documents?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I have explained that the one was my hand-written note. There were other notes from Janine in there pertaining to operations, in particular the media operations. For example, in the ones that we had opposite Khotso House etc., etc., the ones we had in Lesotho etc., etc. People had been staying in our house who had been involved in these things. There were some car registration numbers, some sources' names, there was a note from Janine basically explaining her position. I've got a list of these things in my amnesty application, what page exactly I don't recall, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: The reason for your destroying of those documents, what was the reason?

MR BELLINGAN: The documents were a risk, Mr Chairman, they needed to be destroyed. Some of it was in Janine's handwriting and they needed to be destroyed. The were a huge risk, Mr Chairman. - also in the context of the events of the evening. It would have been totally for me to carry those documents on me or hide them in the vehicle or go and drop them off at the office, as has been suggested, or try and hide them in my house or anything like that. So I had to get rid of those documents, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Then I want to turn to a document which we find in bundle 4, on page 10 thereof, an affidavit from Mrs Boiley(?). I would like to refer you to page 13 of this bundle and I just want to read to you the second paragraph. Mrs Boiley states in her affidavit

"My indruk was dat hulle gedink het Michael Bellingan vir Janine vermoor het."

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman, that refers to the Saturday morning when my then administrative assistant, Mr Deane Boiley, had been to someone's house or an office or whatever where my colleagues were gathered and that is her observation of that particular occasion, which yes, it accords with my perception of events later on as well.

MR HATTINGH: You at no stage told either Mr Oosthuizen or Mr Erasmus explicitly that you in fact murdered Janine?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I didn't, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Why not?

MR BELLINGAN: Firstly Mr Chairman, the need for secrecy. It was - there were too many leaks, there was too much discussion going on and then coupled with that I didn't want to make them a party to this, Mr Chairman. If I had told them they would have been accessories after the fact and that would have created all kinds of other problems round that. So I wanted to avoid that altogether. Obviously also the factor I've mentioned in February, pertaining to potential risk. There was no point into going into all of that.

MR HATTINGH: Then I want to turn to the new affidavits of Mr Oosthuizen and Mr Erasmus, those are the Annexures K and J. Starting with Annexure K, could you just give us the date of that affidavit, when it was signed?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, it was signed on the 24th of March 1999.

MR HATTINGH: Now I want you to go through this new affidavit and give this Committee your comments to the contents thereof.

MR BELLINGAN: On page 2 of the affidavit ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Which one?

MR BELLINGAN: It's the one of Mr Oosthuizen, Mr Chairman, marked Annexure K. Mr Oosthuizen deals in paragraph 3.1 on page 2, with the question as to whether Janine worked for the Security Branch. There's two comments that I can make about that, and the first on is that there was a long period when I was at Stratcom, when Mr Oosthuizen wasn't working with me, he was still in Johannesburg and I worked with Brigadier McIntyre etc., etc., and then certainly Janine worked for us on the basis that I've explained to the Committee, on the contract basis.

When Janine initially started to work, as I've explained on peripheral basis for the Security Branch in Johannesburg, after I had met her, it could well be that Mr Oosthuizen doesn't remember that or that it may not specifically have been brought to his attention, as he says here.

And then I can just add there, Mr Chairman, that I've recalled that I gave a discussion in February about how one goes about the financing of these types of things.

And with respect to my media operation, my staff at the time will be able to confirm that for the media operation opposite Khotso House, I had a monthly standing advance for that operation and the stringers and the people associated with it that were paid would be paid and then the money basically claimed back by a claim form, not always via the usual system of motivations etc., etc.

So I had fairly much a free hand as far as that is concerned, Mr Chairman. It may well be that Janine was paid out of that system. People on my staff at the time like Warrant Officer Beyers and Paul Erasmus and so on will be able to confirm that.

As far as paragraph 3.2 is concerned, it could well be that Mr Oosthuizen is right when he says:

"Ek dra geen kennis van die beweerde lys nie, of enige operasies wat in daardie verband geloots was deur teenspionasie nie."

It was in fact something I was doing, not counter-espionage, Mr Chairman. The Committee must also remember that it wasn't only Mr Oosthuizen that I was speaking to, I had a fairly free hand in respect of my duties, Mr Chairman. And I also had and was involved with some of the most highly skilled people in the country with these types of things. So there were times when it just frankly wouldn't have been necessary to talk to Mr Oosthuizen about this type of thing.

In fact, this past Sunday when I was going through some documentation I'd just received I found some document which prompted my memory as far as something else that Mr Oosthuizen also wouldn't have knowledge of, and that is how names that I arranged via head office and the regions of people that we were to test on mass, under the guise of what is called here scientific investigation, whereas in actual fact I was posing 140 ideological and personality questions to these people.

If one looks at these names over here there is only one conclusion that one could reach, some of the names that we slipped in, if one just looks at - well I'm sure that if the TRC looked at them they would agree with me that these are names that have been cropping up quite regularly in terms of what I would then have called possible extremists. And there were also people on this list who were suspected of being working for the ANC at the time as well. So Mr Oosthuizen would know nothing about this, but certainly some other people would. And it's against the background of me drawing up a list and getting involved with these types of things that I mention this as well.

So as for paragraph 3.2, it could well be that Mr Oosthuizen doesn't know about that. In fact I'm quite sure he didn't know about the list. I already testified to the fact that I didn't want anyone to know about the list.

In terms of paragraph 3.3, I don't know if this is some sort of effort to get around this allegation that was made about Renata and I having an affair or being at Port Edward or whatever, prior to Janine's death, which is not, there's no basis at all for that, certainly not rumours around the office. And I would have known if there were such rumours, Mr Chairman, I never heard any such rumours around the office. Certainly - prior to the murder there were most definitely no such rumours whatsoever, Mr Chairman. After the murder the rumours were to the extent that it was I who had killed Janine and not with anything at all to do with an affair with anybody else. So I'm not happy at all with paragraph 3.3.

MR HATTINGH: That covers Mr Oosthuizen's affidavit. If you could turn to the affidavit of Mr Erasmus, Annexure J, ...(intervention)

MR BELLINGAN: May I just on paragraph 3.3 there, Mr Chairman, just bring to the Commission's attention, the Committee's attention the statement submitted by my wife, where she also denies this thing about the affair. I think it has been handed in.

MR HATTINGH: Turning to Exhibit J ...(intervention)

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, before we get to that affidavit, may I interject here. We were referred to a list of names of 140-odd names, I'm not sure what the real suggestion was concerning my client, Brigadier Oosthuizen. May I ask you that I can see this list. It didn't seem relevant at all to me and I'm not sure what the point was that Mr Bellingan was trying to make.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it appears as if he was trying to illustrate his point that Mr Oosthuizen wouldn't have been aware of all his, Bellingan's activities. But there can't be, I don't see what difficulty there would be. Do you want to have a look at the list? Alright, it is being handed to you.

Advocate Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I just want to say that we have no problem with making this list available. We did not consider it so relevant as to actually make it an exhibit or annexure, but in any event it is available to anyone who would like to have a look at the list. We would like to turn to the next exhibit, the statement from Mr Erasmus, and I would like the applicant to just indicate whether he has any comments in regard to this statement. Perhaps firstly tell us what is the date of this new statement.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, it's dated 24th of March 1999.

MR HATTINGH: Have you got any comments with regard to this statement?

MR BELLINGAN: General Erasmus is confirming, as I understand it, the answers that he gave in writing to his attorney on a previous occasion. If I remember correctly, the answers were some denials and some not rememberings. And if General Erasmus says he doesn't remember, then so be it, then he doesn't remember, Mr Chairman. But as for any suggestion that I've given wrong information to the Committee, that is not so. The information I've given to the Committee is accurate.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you. I would then like to turn to Mr Steyn, the investigating officer involved in the murder case of Janine, have you had the opportunity to discuss with Mr Steyn subsequent to the criminal trial, about any problems that he experienced with regard to his investigation into the murder case?

MR BELLINGAN: During the investigation Mr Steyn mentioned problems that he was experiencing, Mr Chairman. I haven't seen Mr Steyn subsequent to the murder trial, Mr Chairman, but certainly during the investigations he approached me and said that he would appreciate it very much if, words to the effect that he understands about the pressure etc., etc., but if we could perhaps leave his family out of it as far as the threats were concerned. I conveyed to him then that I had nothing to do with it, in the sense that it was not I who was causing the particular actions that he was complaining about to me and also through the media at that stage. There were a lot of reports about the harassment etc., etc. It was not I who was doing that, Mr Chairman, and I told Mr Steyn that.

MR HATTINGH: Were there any reports in papers, newspapers with regard to the tampering with evidence?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman, there were reports, also ...(indistinct) trial.

MR HATTINGH: Did you discuss this issue with Mr Steyn?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman, but he himself discussed that before the various forums previously. The inquest, he mentioned certain problems with certain of the exhibits, he mentioned problems with his access to documentation, he mentioned that he was being blocked by senior people etc., etc. He also complained about the fact that he's been kind of, at the time was kind of blacklisted because he was visiting Shell House to get information and things like that. And it's a bit of a no-no in the context of the times then, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Bellingan, I would then turn to Exhibit P. Mr Chairman, perhaps I should just make sure - ja ... The notes that you made in preparation for the re-examination, Annexure P, would you go ahead and bring to the attention of this Committee whatever you would still like to bring to their attention at this stage.

MR BELLINGAN: I think the notes that I made last night pertaining to the skeleton application and the theory of the two annexures, I think it's been covered enough, Mr Chairman, I don't want to go into anything more there except to request that that be regarded by the Committee as not forming part at all, the discussion document, of my amnesty application. It never was. And my perception has been all along, Mr Chairman, that although that document could do me no harm then, surely it is I who must decide what is part of this application. And secondly, ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Mr Bellingan, may I just interrupt at this stage, you've heard that the Committee is not interested at this stage in any argument with regard to how all this evidence is to be decided upon in the end, so if you could just restrict yourself to matters that you specifically would like to bring to the attention of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Matters of a factual nature.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman. On the next page, I've marked it

"Perjury"

At page 907, during cross-examination ...(intervention)

MR CHASKALSON: I don't want to interrupt unnecessarily, but again we would rather not be referred to extracts in the record. If he would like to make a point again we'd simply like him to make that point. If it's on the record, the record will speak for itself and the points can be made in argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that will assist. You can accept that there is no need for you to read out or re-canvass what is in the record. If there is any factual issue that you would like to add or to rectify in regard to that, then you can go ahead and do that.

MR BELLINGAN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The suggestion pertaining to media reports and the information in my amnesty application. With regard to that, I always wanted my amnesty application expedited. It's not surprising to me at all that there were media reports and applications for amnesty concerning matters I've mentioned in my background etc., etc. It's not surprising at all, Mr Chairman. It would have been surprising if it wasn't like that.

As far as the suggestion of, that I made of my, of career ruination, I want to just mention that what I was referring to is not just one's career in the South African Police, but all future prospects in terms if one is then branded a traitor etc., etc., all future prospects, not just in the South African Police.

The fact that within the context of the organisational culture of the Security Branch, there was a fairly ruthless approach to traitors, Mr Chairman, and that it was known to me that traitors were eliminated. So in the context then of why it is that I've lied before, during the course of the investigation and inquest and trial etc., in statements etc., etc., it was necessary until such time as the goals of the National Party had been reached. That organisation has been put to sleep now and it's no longer necessary to lie, the goals have been reached, Mr Chairman. And the only mechanism available to stop this cycle of action and counter action and having to lie and cover up, is the TRC. This is the correct forum, certainly not the Courts, Mr Chairman.

As far as complaints that I strayed or didn't answer the questions always, there was quite a lot of complaints to me about that, I feel that there is a certain psychological resistance that I've got, sometimes about operational matters, due to my training and also the depression I've been experiencing concerning these matters, Mr Chairman. But that I believe that I've tried to answer directly, I've tried to give the Commission the picture.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, I have to object against this type of evidence. The witness is now basically arguing why he should be found a credible witness, this has got nothing to do with any factual averments of any nature.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's right. Your counsel will, once all of the evidence has been led, will address us fully on the kind of question that you're dealing with now. So you don't need to be concerned about that, that will be taken care of, there will be sufficient time for that. Are there any other issues of a purely factual nature that you want to bring to our attention in order to ensure that you've made a full disclosure and to ensure that we fully understand what this matter is all about?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Do that, yes.

MR BELLINGAN: Thank you. Just, if anyone over here has any doubts about my training or about, for example the depression, then there could be some type of indication for example, and then I could hand letter in from the person I've been seeing about that. For example, my counsel wouldn't be in a position to argue that later on, Mr Chairman, unless it's been brought to someone's attention. So that's only for that reason that I mentioned it.

As far as the NUMSA matter is concerned, Mr Chairman, it is so that at the time that I did this I did foresee that the idea would replicated in general, but in my amnesty application I can't ask specifically for amnesty for other matters because I don't, they're not within my personal knowledge, except that I am responsible insofar as the idea was replicated. I just wanted to stress that, Mr Chairman.

At one point there was a suggestion that the meal at MacRib had cost R250 and that's not so. The R1 000 I mentioned and the R9 750 that was drawn, that R250 difference was not anything to do with a meal at MacRib. It certainly was not a sumptuous meal at all, Mr Chairman, pertaining to the NUMSA matter.

Mr Chairman, the article in Mr Trengove’s bundle, is an article in there by Mr Horak from the Mail and Guardian, concerning the NUMSA and those types of operations. I'm not quite sure if that is a local newspaper, I think it may be a British newspaper. The point being that I hadn't seen before anyway, before the start of this hearing. Because we have a Mail and Guardian here and there's one in the UK as well. I think this, that article was from the UK one, because as I understand it, Mr Horak at once stage skipped and went to the ANC in London and probably made the article there.

As far as the forms for transfer into, for the untransacted or unintended transfer into Judy White's account, Mr Chairman, the Nedbank form that was filled in which was never intended by me for any such transfer, I can just confirm that that was the case and that most likely the date on the top right-hand side of the form was already entered onto the form before I took it out of my briefcase. That is could have been the case, if one has a look at the fact that the numbers slant different ways.

Then I'd just like to mention that as far as the R30 000 divorce settlement, Mr Chairman, I just want to reiterate that at no stage, although I would have been happy to pay it, at no stage was I under any obligation to pay any divorce settlement to Janine, quite the opposite in fact. Even during the meeting with Mr Mendelow I already told him then, any such demands or requests by Janine were ridiculous. So I just wanted to make that clear, Mr Chairman.

In terms of the murder itself, Mr Chairman, it's been repeatedly suggested that I did that to save my own skin. If I wanted to save my own skin, Mr Chairman, I could simply have joined the ANC, I could have sought political asylum in New Zealand ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Again Mr Chairman, I have to come in here. We are busy once again with argument. I think the time has come for Mr Bellingan to decide whether he wants to do the argument and do it at the appropriate time of whether he wants to leave that to his counsel, but it is now happening over and over again.

MR BELLINGAN: These are things I was thinking about at the time, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, perhaps I, I think it is important - I've given the floor so to speak, to my client, the applicant, but perhaps if we could just for a few minutes have a break and I will just explain to him and then we can just cover the balance of what he wanted to say, in a manner which is more appropriate.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think so. We want to give you every reasonable opportunity to present your case to us, but there are certain limits, technical limits, and that's why there are these objections. Perhaps it was a good idea that we do take a brief adjournment just to allow Mr Hattingh to perhaps give you some guidance so that we don't have an unnecessary re-canvassing of issues. We'll adjourn briefly, thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR HATTINGH: I explained to my client that he's not at this stage to lead any argument. I would however that we conclude this part in a manner that we started. And to the extent that any argument may perhaps slip through, I think my learned friends would then just indicate to the witness that he's not supposed to once again move into argument, and secondly, in the end it's not going to form part of the argument which will be submitted to this Committee and it will then just be left out altogether. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and he appears to be virtually through with the document in any event. Go ahead, Mr Bellingan. You are still under oath.

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: (s.u.o.)

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, then I'll just state as a fact that I did not commit the murder to save my own skin. And then I'd also like to say that I used the word "political amnesty" in respect of New Zealand in my previous evidence, when I meant political asylum at that stage, with regard to New Zealand. That is all about that.

As far as the Evans document is concerned that was submitted by the LRC, it is so that Derek Broone is related to Olivia Forsyth, it is so that the Edwards brothers were involved in that circle, as Gavin Edwards sets out. In fact Royd Edwards spent, lived in my house for a week once with Janine and myself. The - he's quite wrong about the source Sylvia. In fact I've subsequently asked Renata, who also knows Sylvia, to contact her and just see if she wouldn't want to make a statement or whatever and her response is contained in Renata's statement. - if anyone is wondering how it got there.

Then Mr Chairman, at one stage I was asked about the bug on the telephone, I think by yourself, and what is correct is that I put the bug on my telephone prior to the holiday and not after the holiday. After the holiday I got a better version of the bug from the Technical Division in Rebecca Street. There - I was experiencing some problems with the bug, so I got a better one.

Mr Chairman, the murder was not butchery, it was not excessive or needless, I merely previously left it at that because I accept that Advocate Trengrove is putting to me the anger and hostility of the family. So butchery in the sense of, in an emotional sense yes, I accept the anger and hostility, in a technical sense it's not needless or excessive.

As far as the question of whether I'm predisposed to violence, I am assertive, I'm not aggressive and I'm not abusive, Mr Chairman.

The J88 that was submitted or completed on the 6th of June 1991, Mr Chairman, refers to torn ligaments. Torn ligaments is something which takes quite a long time to, not torn ligaments, it's not torn ligaments - it seems to me, I can't read the writing too well, but it seems to be an injury which actually needs plaster casting and all that kind of thing, Mr Chairman, and Janine never had that. I don't recall her every having anything like that. Also, she wrote a letter to her attorney, which is in Mr Trengove’s bundle, shortly thereafter and she never mentions it.

As far as my perception, Mr Chairman, of the general authorisation, I can just that no-one ever instructed me specifically to do this, but I do believe that, my perception to be correct in terms of what I've said about that.

The notes that were copied during my previous testimony in February, Mr Chairman, I never read from those notes, but what I've neglected to say is that the, at the top of the page there's a reference to a spanner, which I've crossed. The reason I crossed it out over there, Mr Chairman, is quite simply that that is what I was going to purchase, it's what I took at the shop, but I gave it back because it occurred to me while I was buying it in Pietermaritzburg that I wouldn't make it through the metal detector at the airport with such an object. So if anyone's wondering about why that spanner is crossed out there ... I understand that Mr Chaskalson was referring to it yesterday.

At one stage I had referred to a quotation in page 2 of Annexure C, which read something to the effect of behind every government there's secret services which keep the government in power, and notwithstanding moral codes etc., etc., or keep the government of the day informed. I just want to make it clear that that is a typical Security Branch euphemism. When we say keep the government of the day informed, what I understood there is keep the government of the day in power. The word "informed" there is completely out of context and it's just euphemistically stated.

I can state, I think, as one of my last points, my second-last point I think, Mr Chairman, that I did know more in, concerning my application for amnesty than what is prescribed for Annexure H with respect to the fact that the first step prescribed there for Stratcom is persuasion. I tried my level best to persuade Janine to desist. I for example to her to a marriage councillor, I reconciled with her, we went on holiday. The next step prescribed is force. I argued with Janine, I threatened her regarding playing with fire, regarding the Official Secrets Act, regarding the fact that it's potentially treason, it's treason what she's doing. And then when I knew that she was not going to change her mind, the third step over there in terms of intensity is elimination, Mr Chairman.

As far as the various definitions of Stratcom are concerned, I can just point out that the war in South Africa was one of a very different nature, Mr Chairman, to any other war and perceptions were vitally important. Stratcom was at the core of what was happening in the country, during all the phases of the struggle, right through the transition until the end. Perception was central to that. For every conceivable situation of conflict there is an application of Stratcom, Mr Chairman.

Lastly, I would like to refer to Annexure G, Annexure G of my amnesty application concerns, it concerns the duties with which I was involved at the time, Annexure G, it's signed by Lieutenant-General Smit, on page 6 of the annexure, Annexure G. And what I want to refer to, Mr Chairman, is on page 7 on the top, page 7. I can just point out that I was the senior captain mentioned on that page. And in terms of the heading:

"Werksaamhede"

I was directly responsible for the following task mentioned over there, and that is:

"The psychometric and polygraphic evaluation of potential agents, journalists ..."

INTERPRETER: Sorry, that should be

"... informants"

MR BELLINGAN

"... double agents, anti-espionage subjects and members of the MID."

MR BELLINGAN: That was a description of my direct responsibility then. I also performed other tasks over here, for example training is mentioned. And then there's another section over here that reads as follows. It reads like this

"The detection, finding and neutralisation of enemies and their efforts aimed at infiltrating the SAP"

I think we all know what "neutralisation" means, Mr Chairman, what it can mean. And that would also have been something that I would have to give attention to, although it was "teenspioenasie" directly, that that refers to. But it certainly doesn't exclude me in any way, if one has a look at page 7.

I think that's it, Mr Chairman, thank you.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Bellingan, is there anything else that you would like to add at this stage, being your last opportunity to say anything?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, the actual deed itself, the actus reus has always been inferred previously, at previous hearings. I've now given a detailed description of that because it's obviously relevant disclosure, full relevant disclosure. The motive has been only suggested previously and I've now given full relevant disclosure about that, Mr Chairman. I would just like to finish off by once again sincerely apologising to the family. I know that they can never forgive me. Perhaps they can just at best, understand the situation I was in, that is all. I know that they can never forgive me and I apologise again to the family.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. We'll adjourn for lunch.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any of the parties who wish to raise an issue which might be relevant, which they haven't had the opportunity to deal with properly and which has arisen from the re-examination of the applicant?

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, before I do begin that, I've just been given an affidavit of Gavin Mark Reid Evans. It's already in the bundle, it's bundle 5, page 62 to 68. That original affidavit was unsigned and unattested to and at the time Advocate du Plessis objected to it and requested a signed copy. We now have a signed copy. I don't know if we simply replace it in the bundle or if you would like to call this Exhibit Q?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, perhaps it's best to give it a number, an independent number. It might be difficult to get it into the bundle otherwise.

MR CHASKALSON: Then let's make that Q.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Chaskalson, there are some issues that you want to raise with the applicant?

MR CHASKALSON: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Arising from the re-examination?

MR CHASKALSON: Correct, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bellingan, I'm just going to remind you that you are still under oath. There are some or other further issues that Mr Chaskalson will be raising with you.

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: (s.u.o.)

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, I don't intend to be long with you, I'd just like to clarify a couple of questions in regard to Annexure O. That is a document which is in your handwriting and which you have told us is a transcript of a meeting that you had with Mr Kjellberg on, I think it's the 7th of March 1997.

MR BELLINGAN: Correct, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Can you tell us, does this transcript begin at the beginning of your meeting with Mr Kjellberg?

MR BELLINGAN: Practically yes, Mr Chairman. I actually met Mr Kjellberg in the passage and as we walked the tape was already running, but it's indistinct, I can't make it out, up until I think counter number 11, on the counter.

MR CHASKALSON: And Mr Kjellberg was not aware that you were taping this conversation?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, I presume he wasn't, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: And does it conclude at the end of your meeting or does it conclude at the end of the tape and your meeting continued?

MR BELLINGAN: I'm not sure how long the meeting went on after the tape finished, Mr Chairman. I think, if I'm not mistaken, I think the tape being a half hour tape finished as we were finishing off the meeting, or perhaps the meeting went on longer.

MR CHASKALSON: Now you seem to be relying on certain comments made on page 3 of this document, and here I'm thinking in respect of three main quotes, there may be more and you will of course point them out to me, the one is

"I've needed the record of the proceedings of the Court to prepare properly my amnesty application."

And then you speak about the steps you've taken. Then you talk about:

"I sent in a skeleton, then remember we were going to fill it in with Kobus step by step by step."

And then lower down you point out:

"But I realise there's more and more things that is not exactly the type of thing ...(indistinct) the skeleton. To flesh it out is difficult."

And it goes on. And if I understood your testimony correctly, what you were trying to say is that these show that at this stage there were no, there were the

bare bones of an application before the Commission. In fact pages 1 to 8 of the bundle with your hand-written notes, no annexure and nothing else?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, if there was no information before the Commission, why did you say I needed the record, why didn't you say I need the record to prepare?

MR BELLINGAN: That is what we were discussing, the fact that we hadn't yet got it and Mr Kjellberg was undertaking to get these things, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, what I'm asking you is, you say

"I've needed the record of the proceedings of the Court to prepare properly ..."

My understanding of that is that you did prepare something, you did submit something, but you would like the record to complete it.

MR BELLINGAN: Quite true, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: But then Mr Bellingan, if there is nothing in your application, aside from the bare facts, why do you not say: "I need these documents to complete my application"? You put it in the past tense, Mr Bellingan. You put it in a tense that leads me to believe that you have already submitted something and you will require this information to make it proper.

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman. At this stage I had already been needing that and I had already been trying to get it for some time and I still hadn't got it. It was just simply a continuation of a need.

"I've needed the record ..."

... for example.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, I will argue that when you refer to a skeleton application, what you are actually referring to is the annexure that follows after your amnesty application, which contains information and that a skeleton application originally, in your mind, was an application that contains information but which requires further information to be complete, not an application which has no information in it.

MR BELLINGAN: That's not very clear to me, but from what has already been said yesterday by Mr Chaskalson, I think we are in agreement that I've submitted a skeleton application and the TRC has acknowledged that, also by Mr Chaskalson, and then at a later stage I submitted the annexure, but that the TRC at one point in time via Mr Kjellberg, submitted the discussion document.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, let me be clear. By skeleton application I am not referring to pages 1 to 8, I'm referring to other information which follows after that in the bundles, but which you might want to flesh out at a later stage.

MR BELLINGAN: No, that's not the case at all and it's also not what Mr Chaskalson said yesterday.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, I agree with you that originally we received a simple document with no annexure, I accept that, but by the time this conversation takes place, I'm saying to you you have handed us further documentation. Be that as it may, let's move on.

Mr Bellingan, can you explain to us how you flesh out something when there is nothing? Surely you draft something where there is nothing and you flesh out an existing document which requires further detail.

MR BELLINGAN: No, what needed fleshing out is my so-called skeleton application, Mr Chairman, which is on the pro-forma, in my handwriting, of the forms of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and which are just simply not long enough and which I had to simply fill in to meet the deadline, by agreement with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, I put it to you that by the time of this meeting you were fully aware that you had handed in the discussion document to the TRC. Whatever it's status was, be it as it may. Conversations had taken place around that discussion document, and when you refer to fleshing out the skeleton application you are talking about fleshing out that discussion document.

MR BELLINGAN: No, that is quite clearly absurd, Mr Chairman. Anyone who would look at the discussion document will see that in my own handwriting there's names missing, it's not signed, the other, the typed version is not signed by me. There is no possible way that that could have been sent by me as part of my amnesty application, Mr Chairman, and it didn't happen like that.

MR CHASKALSON: And Mr Bellingan, that is precisely why you needed to flesh it out, because you required the further information to insert details, for instance of the lawyer which remains blank, to insert details relating to the murder and to the other events.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, if somebody reads this transcript there's no possible way that you can reach that conclusion, beside from the evidence that I've given and the evidence that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has given.

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I haven no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CHASKALSON

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Is there anybody else that needs to ...

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LENGANE: I do thanks, Mr Chairperson. I'm just trying to test if Mr Bellingan was intending, should we understand Mr Bellingan to have intended to alter his evidence that was given in Pretoria when he spoke now in his speech just before lunch and he spoke about what he headed as general authorisations.

Mr Bellingan, you said that in respect of this topic, general authorisations:

"No-one instructed me. However, what I have said to this Committee before was true inasfar as my perceptions are concerned."

And if I'm not mistaken you were speaking to the NUMSA part of your Exhibit P, is that correct? Is that what you said?

MR BELLINGAN: ...(no audible reply)

MR LENGANE: One of the last few points you made before the lunch break was that

"No-one had instructed me, but those were my perceptions, and what I have told this Committee apropos that was the truth."

MR BELLINGAN: ...(inaudible) Sorry. Mr Chairman, in fact I was referring to number 11 under the, on this Annexure P, which is titled

"Sub-Section (d) - Murder. Number 11"

I think it's the second-last page, second-last page. That is the one I was looking at. And I didn't want to upset anybody further by going into detail and quoting from documents, so I just basically left it at saying that that is the position. But what I actually wanted to say referred to the record 603 to 612, 852, 855 and 453 as well as page 43 and 44 of Annexure B, which is paginated 65 to 66. I wanted to refer to all of those things, Mr Chairman, because at Khotso House I, my advocate specifically put to General van der Merwe this specific quotation over here and he confirmed that it is correct, the quotation that I'm relying on, in terms of what Mr Wagener had said about this highly militaristic bureaucratic organisation. But Mr Wagener's own client, General van der Merwe had in fact already confirmed at the Khotso House hearing that my quotation was correct, that when required, the lower ranks were entitled to act on own initiative. And I was going to talk about all of that, so it actually, it wasn't in the context with the NUMSA matter at all, Mr Chairman.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MR WAGENER: ... on behalf of General van der Merwe, I don't think that is correct. If I can get the page number of the record please, and then we can quote it in the correct context please.

MR BELLINGAN: I'll ...(intervention)

MR WAGENER: In other words, I'm referring to the record of Khotso House. I was there, that was not what General van der Merwe said, so can I ask at this time in moment the page number of the record and we can all check it.

MR BELLINGAN: It was put to General van der Merwe by my advocate and he agreed with the specific quotation that I've mentioned over here. And with the help of my legal representatives I'll be happy to find it, but perhaps tonight, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't know how far that is going to take us.

But Mr Lengane, you're still busy cross-examining, please go ahead.

MR LENGANE: Yes, Mr Chairman. Mr Bellingan, would it therefore be correct to understand that you are now changing your evidence from the fact that you had been requested by General Erasmus to deal with the NUMSA cheques? You are not altering that, you stick by that?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I'm not changing my evidence, Mr Chairman.

MR LENGANE: That's all, Mr Chairperson, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LENGANE

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Chairman, it may not be in order, but I have been prompted by my colleague, who's mentioned two further questions and I would request your indulgence to put these to the applicant as well before he stands down.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well if it's two then I suppose it's not ...(indistinct)

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CHASKALSON: Mr Bellingan, did you record any of the conversations that you had with TRC officials prior to the meeting that you recorded?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes I did, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Do you have the tapes of those conversations?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't have them with me now, Mr Chairman. I can go and look and see if I can find them if it's important to Mr Chaskalson.

MR CHASKALSON: I would request that you provide us with copies of the, of all of the conversations that you have taped, specifically the meetings that took place in November/December of '96, because that may well clarify the issue.

MR BELLINGAN: I'll see if I can find anything, Mr Chairman.

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you, Mr Bellingan, that is all.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CHASKALSON

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: There are a few matters I'd like to obtain more clarity on, thank you Chairperson.

Mr Bellingan, do you know what the end value of Janine's deceased estate was?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, it was around R10 000, 10/11, something like that.

ADV BOSMAN: Who took out the life policy?

MR BELLINGAN: Janine must have taken it out, Mr Chairman, obviously.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you know about this life policy?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman, I didn't.

ADV BOSMAN: Who initiated the claim to have the proceeds paid out to you?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, my father had been going through my documents and he, he basically dealt with all of those things and he brought the documents to me and brought it to my attention and did the necessary arrangements.

ADV BOSMAN: I don't follow that, Mr Bellingan. You say your father went through your documents, in other words you are suggesting that the life policy was amongst your documents?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman, it was in fact amongst Janine's documents, but he went through all of those documents.

ADV BOSMAN: Are you now saying that your father went through your documents and Janine's documents?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman, just Janine's documents, he just went through Janine's documents. She had a type of cardboard filing system with documents in.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you request your father to go through these documents?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall if I requested him, I don't think so, Mr Chairman, I think it just happened as a natural process.

ADV BOSMAN: I find it rather strange, Mr Bellingan. Don't you find it strange that your father, out of his own accord, would go through your deceased wife's documents?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman, I was not feeling very well and I had to get back to work as well, so my father stayed on Johannesburg and attended to various matters for me.

ADV BOSMAN: But at what stage did he go through the documents?

MR BELLINGAN: I'm not sure when he went through the documents, it was while he was still up in Johannesburg.

ADV BOSMAN: Could you just more or less give us an idea of the time span? Did he come up for the funeral and then ...

...(end of side A of tape)

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, he was indeed up for the funeral, Mr Chairman, and then I think he stayed on for a week or so and then all of these people were liaising with my father in writing in Underberg in Natal.

ADV BOSMAN: Which people are you referring to, Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: The pension fund and Bowens, the people doing the estate as such.

ADV BOSMAN: Where was Janine's will?

MR BELLINGAN: That was with Bowens, Mr Chairman.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you know about the will?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, we had had a dispute, Janine and myself, regarding the will. We had a joint will where I had made my mother the guardian in the event of our simultaneous death, and we'd had a debate about this where Janine had a difference of opinion at a certain stage. She felt unhappy with it and she changed the will. She told me she was going to and she went and did it.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you know the content of the will?

MR BELLINGAN: More or less, Mr Chairman.

ADV BOSMAN: What I find peculiar, Mr Bellingan, is that a woman who makes a will to put monies in trust for her children, I find it puzzling - and the amount is

R10 000, well-knowing that she's got a policy which, if I recall correctly, amounted to R144 000, that she did not take the necessary precautions, because she was obviously assisted by a legal representative, to have these monies safely and securely in the trust fund.

MR BELLINGAN: There was a lot of my discretion involved as well, Mr Chairman, and discussions about what happened to that money. It did not form part of Janine's estate, as someone rightly pointed out earlier. The only thing that fell part of Janine's estate was the 10 or 11 or R12 000 or whatever it was. I think the money is still in the trust with Bowens, that particular amount of money. The other was really to a large extent up to myself.

ADV BOSMAN: But Mr Bellingan, I don't want waste time but this is important to me. The bulk of the money went to you and not into the trust. Now you say that you and Janine had a lot of discussions about it, about what exactly, about the policy?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman, only about the potential guardianship of the children, that is all. She wasn't happy with the fact that I had unilaterally, when we arrived at the bank to complete this form, she wasn't happy with that and we were in a hurry, it was a small thing. My reasoning then was the fact that my mother is the youngest person of the four grandparents and that statistics show that the youngest woman will live the longest, so it's the logical thing to put her name down. Janine wasn't happy with that. It's only in that context that the discussions took place, nothing about policies or anything like that, Mr Chairman.

ADV BOSMAN: But you do agree that it is peculiar that she would make provision for the children specifically, in a legal representatives office, and then omit to ensure that the major asset being the insurance policy, is paid into the trust fund for her children?

MR BELLINGAN: I'm not sure what Janine's reasoning was about that. I never formed part of the discussions that she had with Bowens at the time, Mr Chairman, I don't know what the detail of that discussion was and ...(intervention)

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Bellingan, I don't expect you to know the details, but could you tell me, who was named as beneficiary in the will? - because the will obviously was not paid into the estate.

MR BELLINGAN: The children.

ADV BOSMAN: Of the insurance policy?

MR BELLINGAN: ...(inaudible)

ADV BOSMAN: ... insurance policy.

MR BELLINGAN: ...(inaudible)

ADV BOSMAN: Yes.

MR BELLINGAN: Of the insurance policy, if I'm not mistaken I was the beneficiary.

ADV BOSMAN: And you did not know about this?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I didn't know about that.

ADV BOSMAN: And your father went through your deceased wife's documents a couple of days after the funeral without you having instructed him to do so?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, it's more or less how it happened, Mr Chairman. I didn't instruct him, we may have discussed it. He may have asked me; should I take care of things. There were a few things he was doing for me then while I was at work etc., etc.

ADV BOSMAN: Were you surprised by this windfall?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall what I felt about it, Mr Chairman, it wasn't something which at the time I, I had a general emotional numbness, it wasn't something that I suddenly felt elated by or anything like that. It's not something that made an impact upon me at all, Mr Chairman.

ADV BOSMAN: Just one more aspect, what did you do with this money?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall what I did with all of it, Mr Chairman. Perhaps I could go back and see if I could find out.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Bellingan, I don't want to pressure you, but once again if I may just sort of comment. I find it peculiar that one doesn't know what he did with R144 000 which he did not expect to get out of his wife's estate.

MR CHASKALSON: Sorry to interrupt. Mr Chair, through you. If my recollection is correct, the amount in question is actually R44 900-odd, it's not R144 000.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Mr Chaskalson, I actually said that I couldn't recollect the exact amount. But never the less, R44 000, a windfall which you did not expect and you cannot recall what you did with it. Can't you recall whether you invested it? Surely you didn't just carry it around in your pocket?

MR BELLINGAN: There was a house that we bought after that. I'm thinking of major assets. There were things for the children, there was the fact that my children went to stay in Underberg with my parents, so obviously money for the upkeep etc., etc., as well, Mr Chairman, things that needed to be bought, etc., etc. So more than likely I would have used a lot of the money for that.

ADV BOSMAN: Are you saying for the children?

MR BELLINGAN: I can't say with any certainty now whether I used all of that money for the children, but I did most certainly use some of it, if not a lot of it or most of it, for that purpose.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

When was that policy taken out?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Have you never had any clue at all about this policy - ever?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it an Old Mutual policy?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions arising from what we have asked, Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no questions.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Rautenbach, have you got anything?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, we've got one difficulty. Something was raised by one of the members of the Panel. We are in possession of a document relating to certain, well we're in possession of a certain document. We actually wanted to use the document now and to ask the question to the witness. However, as far as the source of the document is concerned, we would like to just clarify that with the source. We feel that in the haste of it, we came into possession of the document at a very late stage, it may be unfair towards the source and to the witness just to put it right now. We'd just like to reserve that one question relating to the document.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll deal with it when you are again ready to raise it. Yes, Mr Hattingh, I accept that is the evidence of the applicant?

MR HATTINGH: That's correct, Mr Chairman. We will then proceed with the next witness, who will be Judy White.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got the logistical arrangements in place? Alright.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: Ms White, can I ask you to stand please. Can you give your full names for the record?

COLLEEN JUDY WHITE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated. Mr Hattingh?

EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Ms White, is it correct that you are the sister of the applicant, Mr Michael Bellingan?

MS WHITE: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now at the time when his late wife, Janine was killed, where did you live at the time?

MS WHITE: I lived in Pietermaritzburg.

MR HATTINGH: The date that we're referring to is the 20th of September 1991. Now did you meet with your brother, the applicant, during that weekend?

MS WHITE: Yes, I collected him on the Saturday morning.

MR HATTINGH: Now prior to meeting with your brother, had you spoken to him over the telephone?

MS WHITE: Yes, I had.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know his late wife?

MS WHITE: Yes, I did know Janine.

MR HATTINGH: When was the last contact that you had with Janine Bellingan, prior to that weekend or the day, the 20th of September '91?

MS WHITE: When she phoned me early on the Wednesday evening of the 18th, I think it was.

MR HATTINGH: Pertaining to that telephone discussion of the 18th, the Wednesday, between yourself and Janine, could you just tell the Committee what was discussed between yourself and Janine.

MS WHITE: Yes, well it actually started off purely as Janine wanted to find out if I knew where Michael was as she wanted to know if he was coming back on the Friday or the Saturday. I said to her that I didn't actually know for sure yet because he hadn't contacted me, but that we did have arrangements for the Saturday to go and visit my parents.

I then actually joked with her in a manner, by asking her how was it going with Michael and the Gestapo. She then turned around to me and said that things weren't going well and she was not at all happy with Michael being in the Security Branch. She hadn't been happy, from prior conversations that we had, she hadn't actually been happy with it for a long time. And then proceeded to tell me - the conversation was a little more in depth, I can't remember everything word for word, that she had plenty of documentation that could actually sink the Security Branch and get them all into a lot of trouble. My comments back to her then were; didn't she think that that would be unfair on Michael as well and she said to me it was the only way she could think of to get him to leave the Security Branch.

I said to her it wasn't a very wise thing for her to do. I even mentioned the word "treason" to her that night, but she said that she was furious and she intended doing it. Our conversation then went on. We had a personal conversation. She discussed with me about them having a new house and she seemed pretty excited about the fact that they were going to be moving to new home. And that is the gist of the conversation that we had that evening.

MR HATTINGH: You say it was the gist of the conversation, did she indicate where she would take the documents to?

MS WHITE: Well she said that she was either going to take it to the ANC or she was going to let it go to the media.

MR HATTINGH: Was any information given as to the exact contents of the information or documents?

MS WHITE: No, because on previous discussions she'd wanted to discuss things with me and I wasn't interested in knowing exactly what was going on. I knew where Michael worked, I knew he worked for the Security Branch, I knew she at times had helped out on certain things, but it wasn't exactly my favourite subject, so I never ever encouraged either of them to tell me exactly what kind of operations or what they were involved in.

MR HATTINGH: What Janine told you with regard to the documents, did she give you any time-frame as to when she intended to take the action that she'd told you about?

MS WHITE: Yes, from the conversation it sounded to me as though she intended doing it almost immediately and she had a very serious intention of letting those documents go, at least within the next couple of days.

MR HATTINGH: Was there anything more said about these documents between yourself and Janine?

MS WHITE: Gosh, I can't remember the exact form of the conversation, all that she said to me was that she was going to let them either go to the ANC or to the newspapers.

MR HATTINGH: Did you have telephonic contact with Michael during the course of the following days?

MS WHITE: Yes, Michael phoned me the next day and ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Would that have been the Thursday?

MS WHITE: That would have been the Thursday, yes.

... to confirm our arrangements. I then said to him, asked him if he had contacted Janine as Janine had been looking for him. We confirmed our arrangements that I would fetch him on the Saturday morning. And then purely out of interest's sake I asked him if he was leaving the Security Branch. Mike said to me no, he had no intention of leaving the Security Branch, and why would I ask a question like that. I then explained to him the conversation we have had with Janine and he actually didn't make any further comment to me about it, he just said to me that we'd stick to our arrangements and I was to meet him at 9 o'clock on the Saturday morning.

MR HATTINGH: What was the agreement as to when would you meet him on the Saturday morning?

MS WHITE: I was to meet him on the Saturday morning on the corner of - gosh, now I can't remember, it was opposite the OK Bazaars. I've got a feeling it was Pieter Maritz Street and - I'm sorry I can't remember the exact streets now, but it was opposite the OK Bazaars, sort of the bottom end of Pieter Maritz Street.

MR HATTINGH: What was the arrangement with regard to time?

MS WHITE: The time would be 9 o'clock.

MR HATTINGH: Did you in fact meet Michael on that Saturday morning in Pietermaritzburg?

MS WHITE: Yes, I did meet him that morning in Pietermaritzburg.

MR HATTINGH: Your recollection as to when he arrived?

MS WHITE: I got there before he got there, and it would have been between nine and nine fifteen. It definitely would have been no later than nine thirty.

MR HATTINGH: And what happened thereafter? - just briefly.

MS WHITE: We kissed each other hello like normal. We then - I presume we were chatting, went, we stopped. We first stopped at a little shopping centre where I did some shopping. Mike in actual fact didn't get out the car, I went in on my own. We were going to my parents for a braai at the farm in Boston, so we needed to get a few things. Did a little bit of shopping, then got back into the car and we drove back up to the house.

MR HATTINGH: Carry on, what happened at the house.

MS WHITE: Okay. When we arrived at the house ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Just briefly.

MS WHITE: Yes. I actually don't remember now whether when we got there a phone call had already come through for my brother, or the phone call came through when we just arrived over there, but one of his, I think it was, I can't remember if it was Colonel Taylor or Colonel Oosthuizen phoned to tell him he was to come back to Johannesburg as soon as possible as there was an emergency. I actually think it was a message we got, otherwise my brother would I'm sure have asked what the emergency was. I think my husband actually took that phone call.

Then Michael tried to phone the house. He then went down to the bathroom and asked me to carry on trying to phone the house to see if Janine knew of any emergency or any problems or if anybody had contacted her. I carried on trying. At one stage I got through, there was a man that answered the phone. I then walked down the passage towards the bathroom and said to Mike: "I don't know, there seems to be something strange, I can't get through, it's a strange sort of engaged signal on the telephone.

He then finished in the bathroom, came back upstairs again. He then tried the phone and Lydia, the maid answered. She then informed Mike that Janine had been murdered. He then couldn't - that was when Mike broke down totally and asked me to take over the phone. I took the phone over, I spoke to Lydia. She wasn't, she couldn't speak any longer either, so the chap, I think he was helping Mike with building operations or something, I'm not too sure, Harris, then informed us that it was definite Janine had been murdered. ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Okay. Now having received this news, what arrangements were made to leave Pietermaritzburg to come to Jo'burg?

MS WHITE: Oh okay, Sorry, one of the things that had happened prior to that, because we were going out to my parents and it was the last time we would see Mike before Xmas time, I, when I got back to the house, phoned the airport, we decided to see if we could Mike a later flight. Instead of him going back, I think it was the 5 o'clock flight, we would see if we could maybe make the flight a little bit later. I then phoned the airport and changed his flight. I actually - in actual changed to the 6 o'clock flight. There didn't seem to be a later one after that.

Then when all of this happened it was actually quite traumatic you know, it's ... I then got the phone number from Mike, of Colonel Oosthuizen, and I don't remember whether I phoned the airport first again to change the flight or whether I phoned Colonel Oosthuizen first. I then got hold of Colonel Oosthuizen to try and ascertain where the children were and get some form of information from him. He then did confirm that Janine had been murdered, but that he actually didn't know where the children were.

Then I phone the airport - as I say I don't know which I did first, phoned the airport, changed Mike's flight back to the earlier one. That was the earliest we could possibly get him on considering from where we were to have to still drive through to Durban. In the meantime my husband then drove through to Boston, which was the place where my parents had a farm, to inform my parents of the news of Janine.

MR HATTINGH: In any event, arrangements were made for Michael to go back to Johannesburg.

MS WHITE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And some of the family had accompanied him to Johannesburg, is that correct?

MS WHITE: Well I accompanied him to Johannesburg. My father and my husband drove us to the airport to take the flight back to Johannesburg.

MR HATTINGH: At the inquest hearing into this matter, you testified, is that correct?

MS WHITE: Yes, I did, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now the whole issue about the telephone discussion between yourself and Janine and the contents thereof was not dealt with at the time of the inquest, is that correct?

MS WHITE: No, it wasn't at all.

MR HATTINGH: Could you explain the reasons for that.

MS WHITE: Yes, I can explain the reasons for that. First of all, at the very start of this, when we got back to Johannesburg - and I might add to this, right up until my brother's amnesty hearing, I firmly believed that my brother was innocent of the murder, nothing was really done about it, there were no investigations, nothing seemed to be going on with this murder. I stayed for two weeks up in Johannesburg with my brother. We had no contact, we weren't allowed to know anything that was going on with the case.

I then went back to Johannesburg and in December was the first time that I was approached by the police to give a statement, which I then did, I gave a brief statement. Then in January again ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Just to interrupt you, in that statement, did you mention the issue of the telephone discussion?

MS WHITE: No, I wasn't asked about that. All I was asked to relate was my names, that kind of thing and the events of the Saturday morning. That's all I was asked about. I wasn't asked anything else. And up until that stage I didn't even know that my brother was even being implicated in this murder.

So as far as I was concerned, all they were doing was following up on times and things like that. I think the first time that I was actually told or realised that my brother was being implicated in this murder, I think that was in the January when for the first time Detective Steyn and Beyleveld came down to Pietermaritzburg. The first was purely with Detective Beyleveld. And that was in the January. Shall I continue on what happened?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, yes, please do. To explain the reason for your not mentioning the telephone discussion with Janine.

MS WHITE: Okay. Then in the January when - that time it was Detective Beyleveld and Steyn, they came to my home, not to my place of work. I was getting quite angry about the insinuations against my brother and I insinuated to Detective Steyn that my personal views on this were that I actually believed it was my brother's colleagues that had done, that had committed this murder. He then asked me ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Sorry, are you referring to colleagues, where?

MS WHITE: In the Security Branch. Because for me it was very sort of strange that they knew about this. I mean there was Brixton Murder and Robbery Squad, which I can fully understand that at a scene of a murder they were called to be there, but how did they get to know about it? You know these were all things that were crossing my mind. How did they get to know about it when, they were investigating a murder and, you know as far as I knew the maid didn't know where Michael was based, people didn't seem to know. So that was a funny little question that was raised in my mind.

Then the other thing was that Mike's colleagues had gone home before him. If I'm not mistaken he mentioned that they'd gone home on the Friday. Michael was in Pietermaritzburg, I could not understand how he could possibly be implicated in the murder. So I mentioned that fact to Detective Steyn. He was at the time interested in it and asked me to elaborate, and I said I can't elaborate, I don't know, those are just feelings that I had.

And then the next time I had a conversation with my brother, he was highly angry with me and told me I'm not to say another word about it and I'm not to mention the phone call, I'm not to say anything as all our lives, the family's and all of ours, his included, could be at risk over here and I was never ever to mention anything about the Security Branch again.

So that was basically the start of the threats to me. Within a matter of a week or so my house was broken into. Exactly a week later - I mean, we had just had a brand new Chubb alarm system fitted to this house, nobody else had the codes to this. The alarm went off and somebody used to codes to switch the alarm off. Exactly the same time the following week, exactly the same thing happened. The first time only papers were rifled through, the safe, it had looked like somebody had tried to open the safe, they couldn't get into the safe. The next week the same thing happened again. This time silly little things were taken, like my hair dryer, the kids' little TV games, so nothing serious was taken, just purely papers and things rifled through.

MR HATTINGH: So what was in your mind, what did you think about these harassments?

MS WHITE: I felt intimidated and I felt - and not only that, I was getting threatening phone calls as well, phone calls saying: "Don't get involved", things to that sort of matter. I also then started having people following me. When I complained to my brother about it and I said things like this are happening, he just said to me I had to be very careful and not to involve myself any further. And that was one of the main reasons why I never ever mentioned the telephone call. And to me the telephone call, it never cropped up and it never seemed, after all those threats, it never seemed to me to sort of come into the picture of the murder as I never ever expected or thought that my brother had committed the murder anyway.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, if you'll just bear with me for one moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh. Mr Rautenbach?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mrs White, am I correct to say that you were present for most of the duration, if not right throughout, these proceedings?

MS WHITE: Yes, I have been subpoenaed to be here. Those are my reasons for having been here throughout the ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Am I also right to say that you were sitting inside the room, the hall where the matter was heard, both on the previous occasion in Pretoria and during this week?

MS WHITE: Yes, normally from about 11 or 12 o'clock I would, in Pretoria I would join in in Pretoria.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you recall when the remark was made by Mr Trengrove in his cross-examination to Mr Bellingan that you were sitting in Court and that he made that remark when he was questioning him about the conversation you had with Janine?

MS WHITE: Yes, and at the time I actually brought it to the attention of my brother's lawyers that I had been subpoenaed and I no choice but to be there.

MR RAUTENBACH: Will you please repeat that, I have difficulties, I don't have an ear-set on.

MS WHITE: Sorry?

MR RAUTENBACH: Please just repeat that, I didn't hear that.

MS WHITE: Yes, at the time I did make a remark to my brother's attorneys to please make a note that I had been subpoenaed and therefore that was the reason I had to be there right throughout the last proceedings. I did have permission though to come a little bit later each morning.

MR RAUTENBACH: You have also - would you agree with me, Mrs White, that you have heard that Mr Trengrove put it to Mr Bellingan, your brother, that as far as his case is concerned that that evidence about the conversation is a vital aspect in this case? Did you hear that?

MS WHITE: I might not have heard it or whatever ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: Yes, I do, I was there at the time when he made that remark.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes. Do you accept that this is quite a vital issue?

MS WHITE: I suppose it would be, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Because it seems at this moment at least, that you are the only person that can back up anything that Mr Bellingan has said, do you realise that?

MS WHITE: No, I don't know. Surely there must be other people that should be able to back him up as well, in his work and things like that?

MR RAUTENBACH: Let's just leave it at that for the moment. I would like to ask you, you say that you were under the impression that it was members of the Security Police who killed Janine, is that correct?

MS WHITE: That was my own personal feeling at the time, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: I'm asking you about your own personal feelings.

MS WHITE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: When did you form that view?

MS WHITE: I formed that view when I first hear that they wanted to, that they had decided to make Michael - what do you call it, the, well do the investigations into Michael, and that he was their prime suspect.

MR RAUTENBACH: When did you first realise that he was a suspect?

MS WHITE: It was the first time that the police came to me to take statements from me.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mrs White, am I correct - let's just go back, am I correct that when you, you say you went up to stay for a period of about two weeks with your brother, correct?

MS WHITE: That's right.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now at that stage we all know that Janine's body was at the mortuary, correct?

MS WHITE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And am I correct that yourself, you yourself and Mr Bellingan volunteered to identify the body, correct?

MS WHITE: No, I never ever volunteered.

MR RAUTENBACH: Well I just want to put it to you that there is an entry in the investigating diary to that effect by Mr Steyn, the investigating officer. Do you deny that?

MS WHITE: No, I definitely deny that. I would never have offered ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: As you also denied against him that you had a - or as you also deny that you told him, that you first, on the first occasion when he asked you about the Nedbank account in Pietermaritzburg at Cascades, you also denied that you told, that you deny that you denied that fact of having that account?

MS WHITE: Definitely, I would never deny having a bank account.

MR RAUTENBACH: It seems to me we are going to have a couple of other incidents as well and it will be interesting to see whether you will also deny what the investigating officer said in his investigating diary, but we'll get that later. At this stage I would like to ask you, are you aware of the fact that Mr Bellingan wanted to, or volunteered to identify his wife's body at the mortuary?

MS WHITE: Yes, I'm aware of the fact that he wanted to.

MR RAUTENBACH: That happened, I could only assume, a day or two after the murder?

MS WHITE: I can only assume that must have been the Sunday or the Monday after our return, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes. And do you recall that he was specifically told by the investigating officer that the investigating officer would not like him to go and identify the body, as he regarded the matter as a very sensitive issue?

MS WHITE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: What did you make of that, that the police investigating officer did not want a man to go and identify the body of his own wife?

MS WHITE: We actually thought it was a bit absurd at the time. We could not understand why he could not identify his own wife's body.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mrs White, absurd, why absurd?

MS WHITE: Because ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes.

MS WHITE: ... I did not think my brother would even - I mean at that stage it had never even crossed my mind that my brother might be involved in it, and we could not understand. I mean my parents, myself, our family, we were totally taken aback with things like that.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mrs White, I can understand that you say to us that it was absurd. I want to say to you, what inferences did you draw from that, what did you think? The investigating officer, that's the man in charge of this investigation, he's the man who says: "you are not allowed to go", you the husband, you're not allowed to go and identify your own wife. What inference did you draw from that?

MS WHITE: The inferences I drew was that it made me very angry, and that is all I can tell you. I made no other inferences from it. I was highly angry and upset by these things.

MR RAUTENBACH: Are you telling us, Mrs White, that the thought that he is a suspect or that he's suspected, did not enter, did not cross your mind?

MS WHITE: Not at all.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you have discussions at that stage with your brother regarding his discussions with the investigating officer?

MS WHITE: As far as I know he hadn't even had discussions with the investigating officer, I have no idea. At that stage - I can relate to you what happened in those two weeks that we were up over there, and my brother was not in a condition definitely, not even for the first two days, the Sunday he was not in a condition to do any arrangements himself, he was not in a condition thereafter.

As my brother very rightly said just now, when my father came up to Johannesburg my father took over a lot of the personal aspects of things. And as far as I was concerned, my brother was totally down in the dumps, he was totally depressed, and that is how we handled the situation that week.

MR RAUTENBACH: If you look back at it now with the knowledge that you have now, would you agree with me that your brother is an extremely good actor?

MS WHITE: Well!

MR RAUTENBACH: Would you agree with me?

MS WHITE: I don't know that my brother was acting. I was there with him ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: But you know now, you know now what happened. You know now that he, all the shock ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: ... that you observed - I mean you were under the impression that here is a man who lost his wife and a man that was in a state of shock because of that, you now know that he was in fact the man who made the news. Now knowing that now, my question is this; do you not agree with me that he is an extremely good actor, that he can fool you like this, his sister?

MS WHITE: I don't know that my brother was actually acting. I saw him over there and as far as I am concerned, whether it was just a case of letting out emotions and that, what I saw from my brother, my brother was totally distraught at that time.

MR RAUTENBACH: Was that the type of reaction with hindsight, you would have expected from someone who planned, who meticulously planned a murder and who then brutally executed that murder? Was that the type of reaction you would have expected from a man doing that or not?

MS WHITE: Well I don't know that I'd like to have to put myself in a position to have to answer that. I know what I saw and I know what I experienced with my brother, and those were genuine feelings that I saw coming from my brother. Whether it was relief from it or whether, as you put it, that he was acting, I really don't think my brother was acting at the time.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mrs White, did he tell you that after his first meeting with, or - ja, after his first meeting with Steyn, the very early meeting, that's in the first couple of days, that Steyn actually informed him "dat daar fingers na hom wys"? - as Steyn put it in his investigating diary. Did your brother tell you that?

MS WHITE: No, he did not.

MR RAUTENBACH: Are you saying, Mrs White, today in all, - are you serious when you say today in this forum that you had no idea, no inkling that your brother was a suspect in that first week after the murder?

MS WHITE: No, I had no idea my brother was a suspect, none whatsoever.

MR RAUTENBACH: You said to me earlier on that you thought it was the Security Police who were responsible for this deed, correct?

MS WHITE: That's what I thought in my own mind.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you just repeat and tell me when did you form that, if I may call it a suspicion or belief, rather call it your belief at that stage?

MS WHITE: I think that built up over a matter of a couple of months, when I started looking back on things and looking at things and from the time when Detective ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: I would like to get a bit closer to it. When did you, when did you start, when did this idea start forming in your mind that it, firstly it may be the Security Police, then I believe it's the Security Police, but the thought that the Security Police may have been responsible for this? I want to know when that ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: I can't give you an exact time on that, it's a ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Well tell me, give me an estimation.

MS WHITE: ... it's a process.

MR RAUTENBACH: Give me an estimation, first week, second week, three weeks, four weeks, a month, when?

MS WHITE: I don't know. Let's - I don't know, just for arguments' sake let's say I started thinking about it, let's say a month afterwards.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let's say a month after this. What made you, what caused that thought to be entertained?

MS WHITE: Little things to me, the fact that they knew about the murder before one of the other family members had phoned my brother they phoned my brother, the fact that they were at the airport to collect my brother and take my brother away, the fact that you know, they'd come up to Johannesburg, his colleagues had come up to Johannesburg before him. I did not ever think that my brother had committed the murder, but because of all the political sort of things involved in this, I put it down to the fact somebody needed her out of the way. And that is where I started formulating my own opinions about that.

MR RAUTENBACH: When did you see - you talk about a meeting where Steyn came to see you, when was that?

MS WHITE: I think it was the meeting - we had quite a number of meetings, but I think ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Mm, tell me about the first one.

MS WHITE: ... it was the meeting in the January of '92.

MR RAUTENBACH: You say the January meeting was probably the first meeting you had with Steyn?

MS WHITE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now at that stage, January was approximately how many months after the murder, about four?

MS WHITE: It's about four months afterwards.

MR RAUTENBACH: Ja. At that stage you already told us you entertained the thought, as early as approximately a month after the murder, that the Security Police were probably responsible for this murder, correct?

MS WHITE: Well I was sort of formulating, you asked for a time, I gave you a time.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes. No, you said to me approximately a month, Mrs White. In January he came to speak to you, you knew that Steyn was investigating the murder and that Steyn was not from the Security Police, is that correct?

MS WHITE: That's correct, yes, he was Brixton Murder and Robbery.

MR RAUTENBACH: That's right, he came to talk to you. And at that stage you already told us that you yourself were not aware of the fact that your brother was responsible for the murder, number on and number two, you didn't have the faintest idea, as you put it, that he was suspect, correct?

MS WHITE: No, sorry, that was in December when - the first time they came and took a statement was a Detective Beyleveld.

MR RAUTENBACH: Oh, are you saying to me ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: Detective Beyleveld.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let me correct myself immediately.

MS WHITE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Are you saying to me that when they came to see you, you still believed that ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: Oh yes, at the, yes I did. I believed - until they actually informed me, I believed and I carried on believing afterwards that he was innocent, but I had no idea he was a suspect until the police actually came and saw me themselves.

MR RAUTENBACH: When was that?

MS WHITE: Detective Beyleveld came in the December ...

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes.

MS WHITE: ... to take a statement from me.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes.

MS WHITE: And then when Detective Beyleveld and Steyn came together, they actually confirmed with me that my brother was a suspect in the murder.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes. When he came to take the statement from you, when was that do you say? - December.

MS WHITE: Yes, in December.

MR RAUTENBACH: And that was Beyleveld?

MS WHITE: That was Beyleveld.

MR RAUTENBACH: And that was the first time you became aware that he was a suspect?

MS WHITE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did he say to you I want a statement, I want to take a statement from you? ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: He came and ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: ... and you obviously asked him why?

MS WHITE: Yes, I did.

MR RAUTENBACH: And he then said to you well, your brother is a suspect.

MS WHITE: I actually asked him.

MR RAUTENBACH: Is he a suspect?

MS WHITE: I asked him: "Why are you doing this"?

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes.

MS WHITE: "Why are you doing investigations down here"?

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes.

MS WHITE: And I asked him have they got any suspects and he said he to me, he hinted at my brother and that they were looking into other, obviously avenues.

MR RAUTENBACH: And that's when you made your statement to him?

MS WHITE: That's when I made my first statement.

MR RAUTENBACH: But before - can we just get the chronology right here. Before you made your statement you asked him: "Why must, why are you doing, why do you want a statement from me?" and he said to you: "Well he is a suspect", and it was only after informing you that he was a suspect that you made a statement, correct?

MS WHITE: Well I think - if I'm not mistaken, when Detective Beyleveld came he didn't put it to me that my brother was the only suspect, but yes, he did, but he explained that they had to cover all avenues. It was only at the time when, in the January when Detective Steyn and Beyleveld came down together, that was when I was informed my brother was a, was definitely a suspect and he was definitely the only suspect. When Detective Beyleveld came he just basically explained to me that they needed to cover all areas and that yes, as per normal my brother would be ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Are you trying ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: ... it wasn't a big issue when Detective Beyleveld came down.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mrs White, let's just get clear to the first point, the taking of the statement by Beyleveld. You asked him is he a suspect and he confirmed to you that he was a suspect, but that they are also looking at other avenues.

MS WHITE: Yes, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now my first question is, when in December he came and approached you about this statement, the mention, the fact that he mentioned to you your brother is a suspect - we know he said we are looking at other avenues, that statement must have been, if I listened to your evidence and what you believed and how you were impressed by his acting, must have been a shock to your system to hear that he's in fact, in fact he's a suspect, he's a suspect, they were looking at other avenues. That must have been a shock, am I correct?

MS WHITE: A very much was a shock to me.

MR RAUTENBACH: And at that stage you also believed that he's innocent.

MS WHITE: Very much so, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: And you were obviously very concerned about, not only about an investigation against him and the possible consequences of such an investigation, but also about his immediate future and his career if he's a suspect, correct?

...(end of side B of tape)

MR RAUTENBACH: ... you were very concerned?

MS WHITE: Yes, I was very concerned.

MR RAUTENBACH: At the same time you had this - at the same time you realised that you had to co-operate with the police investigation, correct? - you would have had no choice.

MS WHITE: Yes, that's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And in fact if possible you would have been able to assist as far as possible so that his name could be cleared, correct?

MS WHITE: Well yes, but you see you don't understand how the first statement happened. It wasn't a case of they came down and Detective Beyleveld said to me; we now want a full statement from you because your brother is now a suspect in this case, give us the whole string of events, he arrived where I was working, he said to me: "We are doing some investigations in Natal and all we want from you is what happened on that Saturday morning". This wasn't a whole big issue. The only time it became an issue was when Detective Steyn and Detective Beyleveld came down in the January. That statement and that little issue on that time when Detective Beyleveld came down, was purely an issue which I thought was wonderful that it was happening because it was covering the fact that I had fetched my brother, that my brother definitely was down in Natal. That's what the whole thing was about, to establish whether my brother was in actual fact down in Natal. That's all that was about that very first time.

MR RAUTENBACH: To get back to the point, but before I get back to the point I was busy with, right in the beginning when you heard about the burglary, what did you think at that point in time, what was your response, did you have any ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: Sorry, which burglary?

MR RAUTENBACH: The so-called burglary that was staged. Did you ever ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: At my house?

MR RAUTENBACH: No, at the house of, at the murder scene, the scene or the murder.

MS WHITE: Oh. Yes?

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you ever entertain the thought that - I see it's somewhere, you said somewhere in a statement, did you ever at that stage have in mind, well thought that it was ordinary burglars who were responsible for the murder?

MS WHITE: Yes, I suppose at the beginning we did think that.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mm. No at this stage, when he became a suspect, at that stage you already, your thoughts were it was the Security Police, is that correct?

MS WHITE: Sorry at which stage?

MR RAUTENBACH: At the stage when he took, when Beyleveld took your statement, this is December, the December meeting, not even the January meeting.

MS WHITE: Well as I said to you previously, I can't tell you, and the chain of events that made me start thinking those things. But yes, it was a chain of events and especially at the time, well yes, by the time Detective Beyleveld came down, but definitely by the time Detective Steyn and Beyleveld came down in the January and I realised that they were being quite serious about this, yes I did start think that.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now you told this forum that there were certain things that made you think that it may be the Security Police, what were those things?

MS WHITE: It was the fact that they were at the scene, or they got to know about the murder earlier, it was the fact that they collected my brother at the airport, my brother went off with them, his colleagues had come up to Johannesburg before him ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, you mentioned those, are there any other factors that made you think so?

MS WHITE: Well I don't - ja, I suppose there must be. If we go along, ask me ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Mrs White, let's just get to this, what about this explosive, if I can refer to it as that, telephone conversation that you had with Janine, the deceased ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: ... the day before she was, or a couple of days before she was murdered, what about that discussion where she said: "I'm going to sink the Security Branch", a couple of days later she's murdered. That must have impacted on your mind, or am I wrong?

MS WHITE: No, you're a little bit wrong in that way, but I need to give you a bit of background on that for you to understand ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Well try and explain it.

MS WHITE: ... why it didn't impact on me that much. It's not the first time a conversation was had with Janine like that, there had been prior conversations. Over the years there had been prior conversations. So when Janine got upset and threatened things, it was sort of a case you put to one side and you don't take it seriously. I wasn't the only person Janine used to phone and make threats to and get excited with and, she was an excitable person. When she was angry, when things weren't going right with her and my brother she would come up with things, she'd phone family, she'd phone friends. So when this happened and it was said to me, I didn't place that much importance on it, I thought once again Janine was just making idle threats. I didn't take it that it was going to be that important and that she would be murdered because of the conversation, or about the conversation that I'd had with her.

MR RAUTENBACH: You gave me a very longwinded answer, Mrs White ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: But you need to understand that.

MR RAUTENBACH: No. I'll tell you why your answer is totally, totally irrelevant, it is because it's not about your mind-set on the day of the conversation, it's about your mind-set after the murder was committed. This time it was different, this time Janine said she's going to sink the Security Branch, this time she was dead.

MS WHITE: Yes, which also makes ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Now I'm asking you again ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: ... it's also another point, what made me think it was again a political murder done by colleagues. I never ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes.

MS WHITE: So you see, it's a whole factor of things, I can't think of all of the things.

MR RAUTENBACH: So let's just get back to what you've just told me.

MS WHITE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, this time she's murdered, she's these threats and of course there was a factor in your mind that made you think, that made you think, wasn't it he Security Police, am I correct?

MS WHITE: Yes, you see it's a whole fact, it's a whole lot of things, it's ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: A whole lot of factors.

MS WHITE: ... it's not one thing that made me ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Will you agree with me, Mrs White, that that was a very important factor?

MS WHITE: Yes, it probably was.

MR RAUTENBACH: Most probably the most important factor, correct, correct?

MS WHITE: If you put it from that point but not for me from all the other conversations and all the other times I'd spent with Janine.

MR RAUTENBACH: Ja, but I'm saying, the most important factor as far as your suspicions that the Security Police murdered her. That is what I'm putting to you, correct?

MS WHITE: Yes, it would probably would have helped formulate my idea.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes. If that is so, then the question that begs an answer is why when you got this shocking news, as I said it must have been a shock to your system, that your brother is a suspect, wasn't that, that first meeting with Beyleveld when he wanted a meeting and now your brother is a suspect, the time to say to him; wait a bit, wait a bit, I think you've got the wrong guy, I have information. Let me tell you, let me tell you what the deceased told me a couple of days before she was murdered, she wanted to sink the Security Branch. Why didn't you say that?

MS WHITE: Because as I explained to you the first time that Detective Beyleveld came down it had nothing to do with that, he wanted a statement from me to the events of the Saturday morning, he really wanted the statement got done with. The only time the investigation started becoming serious with me, or I was asked any serious questions, was the first time when Detective Steyn and Beyleveld came down together to my house.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes.

MS WHITE: And at that time, I mean I'm sure - I saw Detective Steyn here this morning, I'm sure he will back up the fact that I even mentioned to him the fact that I personally thought it was the Security Branch and Mike's colleagues that had committed the murder.

MR RAUTENBACH: That was a much later stage, and we'll get to that point.

MS WHITE: Oh, okay.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let's back to my question. My question is the following, my question is just this, when you told us of course it was a shock to your system, when you in December with Beyleveld realised that he's a suspect and that is why you had to make a statement. My first question is - we'll deal with the other occasion, why not at this very first occasion did you say to him; you know I had a phone call with her, I think it's the Security Police, it's not him, you may be after the wrong guy? Why not?

MS WHITE: I don't know. Maybe I did mention it, maybe I didn't mention it. Things like that were never followed up.

MR RAUTENBACH: Are you saying ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: Even when I mentioned it to Detective Steyn, that was never followed up or followed through.

MR RAUTENBACH: Are you saying you might have mentioned that to Steyn but he never followed it up? I'm not talking about - I'm talking about not even the fact that you at that stage, that your belief was that the Security Police were responsible for it, I'm talking about the conversation. That conversation with Janine a couple of days before her death, did you ever mention that to them?

MS WHITE: No, I don't think I ever mentioned it.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs White, what impression did you form about this threat that the deceased was making, did you form the impression that it was an idle sort of threat, it was one of the many?

MS WHITE: At the time when the conversation was made to me, yes, I did think it was a fairly idle threat, or a threat that wouldn't be followed through.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you form the impression that she would do what she threatened to do within a matter of days, almost immediately or within a matter of days?

MS WHITE: I must be very honest with you, I don't think that I even thought much about it in that sense. Afterwards when I discussed it with my brother I didn't even discuss it with my brother in the sense of what she had told me, it was more to ask him whether he was leaving. I was more interested in the fact that he might be leaving the Security Branch and getting into a normal, into normal work instead of working for the police. That was more of a concern to me than the other threats that were made.

CHAIRPERSON: But did you form an impression as to when she intended giving effect to this threat?

MS WHITE: Yes, I did. I formed the impression that she intended doing it in - I don't want to specifically say a day, but I definitely formed the impression she was going to do it within the next couple of days.

CHAIRPERSON: So I mean it was serious, wasn't it?

MS WHITE: Yes, but I didn't actually take it that seriously at the time. I did not think it was a very serious issue, coming you know, considering all the other phone calls and the other, the times we had spoken before and threats that had been made before. So for me it wasn't. That - as I say, that wasn't the most important issue for me and that wasn't the issue or the reason why I even spoke to my brother about it, it was more the issue of him leaving the Security Branch.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but was wasn't that discussion the reason why you raised the possible leaving the Security Branch with your brother?

MS WHITE: I actually - the conversation started by me asking him: "Are you leaving the Security Branch?"

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now why did you do that?

MS WHITE: Because Janine said that she had been making threats as well about it, and that would he be leaving the Security Branch, basically, I suppose based on those threats and maybe that's what my brother thought, I'm not too sure. But she said to me unless he left the Security Branch, she would be doing this. And I have no idea what kind of relationship they had according to that or what their discussion were on that.

CHAIRPERSON: But could it have been any other reason than the discussion that you've had with the deceased that prompted to raise this question with your brother?

MS WHITE: Not really, she had been wanting him to leave for a long time, even when they, you know when they'd come down to visit she was always going on about him leaving the Security Branch.

CHAIRPERSON: So it must have been that conversation with the deceased, that prompted you?

MS WHITE: That prompted me to speak to my brother?

CHAIRPERSON: About this particular question of leaving the Security Branch.

MS WHITE: Oh yes, it was that particular conversation, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mrs White, let me just get clarity on it, see whether I understand you correctly. When you - we're now back at the time of the conversation, not after the murder, at the time of the conversation, when you discussed, when you had this telephone discussion with Janine you didn't take her seriously because she always used to make all sorts of threats and all sorts of, she used to say all sorts of things, am I correct?

MS WHITE: Well yes, you could only take it to a point for so long.

MR RAUTENBACH: Ja, but earlier on when I asked you, when we were dealing with your mind-set at the time of the conversation, you made it quite clear that you didn't read anything into it, that to you it wasn't that important because she used to do it and you didn't take her seriously, am I correct?

MS WHITE: Quite correct, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Why was it necessary then, I mean you didn't take her seriously, mentioning, saying to your brother in a telephone discussion that you had with him subsequent to your discussion with Janine, to say in that conversation: "Are you going to leave the Security Force"?

MS WHITE: Because we always had discussions. I mean I'd had a discussion with Janine, I would obviously impart the information over to my brother.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, but you didn't take her seriously at all.

MS WHITE: No, I didn't take her seriously. We actually used to make jokes ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: I see, so it was almost like to say, it was almost like saying to him; Michael, by the way I had a discussion with Janine you know, tell me are you going to leave the Security Branch, and he says; ha, you bet. Was it that type of discussion?

MS WHITE: No, it was not that kind of discussion.

MR RAUTENBACH: Well this is how it sounds.

MS WHITE: No. We would talk to each other and I'd say - I'm not talking about that particular conversation, but in prior conversations I'd say: "Mike, what is going on because Janine has phoned again and she's making threats again" you know, that kind of thing, and he would say to me: "Don't worry about it, just ignore it." I'm talking about that kind of conversation. And that for me was exact, the exact same thing for me that happened that night. I did not take that conversation very seriously.

MR RAUTENBACH: Tell me, Mrs White, when you - and I suppose we can, just to get back to what you considered to be serious and what you considered not to be serious. I think we've established now that after the murder obviously this was one of the most important factors that made you suspect the Security Branch, correct?

MS WHITE: Well it wasn't one of the most important factors, no, it could have been one of the factors. It wasn't one thing like I said to you, it was a whole lot of things and I didn't take one specific thing and say okay, this is going to be my reasoning. My reasoning might not have even been the right reasoning, but for whatever it is, I started getting the impression ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Well I just want to put it to you, Mrs White, that earlier on, I'm talking about minutes ago, you conceded that that was probably the most important factor in you suspecting the Security Branch. Do you want to alter that evidence?

MS WHITE: No, ...(indistinct) the most important factors you said would probably be and I agreed with you.

MR RAUTENBACH: You agreed yes, you agreed with me, that's the point.

MS WHITE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you now want to qualify it again?

MS WHITE: Well I'm just saying it was probably ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you want to qualify it?

MS WHITE: ... it was probably one of the factors yes, but I never specifically thought about it. I didn't say that is going to be a factor.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now you agreed with me that it was at least at best for you an important factor even if you want to qualify your answer, at best for you an important factor. Do you recall that you had a discussion later on with - let's see if I can date it, it seems to me round about May 1992, with the investigating officer, Mr Steyn?

MS WHITE: I had many, I can't ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: You had many.

MS WHITE: ... remember the exact dates.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you recall that you made, that you told him at some stage, as he puts it, and I want to know whether you can recall this conversation

"Judy's saying now for the first time that the deceased blackmailed many persons, for example policemen, judges and other people in high positions and that the deceased worked for the ANC"

Can you recall anything, can you recall that you told him that?

MS WHITE: You'd have to repeat that in English for me because I don't understand all those Afrikaans words.

MR RAUTENBACH: Okay.

"Judy now for the first time says that the deceased blackmailed many people, like policemen, judges, ministers and high placed people, VIP's, and that she worked for the ANC"

I just want to know, if you say to me you never said that, just say so.

MS WHITE: Sorry no, that's the first time I'm hearing that ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: The first time.

MS WHITE: ... I would never have used words "ministers" and "cabinet" ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: First time.

MS WHITE: ... and things like that.

MR RAUTENBACH: You never told him that.

MS WHITE: But I would definitely have mentioned, or I can remember a conversation with Detective Steyn, where I mentioned that yes, Janine had admitted to working for the ANC and, sorry not working for the ANC, threatening to take documentation and stuff to the ANC. I would never have said that she threatened ministers and that, that I wouldn't have said.

MR RAUTENBACH: You never told him that?

MS WHITE: I might have said she'd phoned his, Mike's bosses up and spoken to and that, because that I'd heard about, but definitely not ministers. I think he might have just got a bit carried away with the ministers there.

MS GCABASHE: Mr Rautenbach, just a page reference please for that? - just for the record. Page reference?

MR RAUTENBACH: It is part of the investigating diary, I don't know what's its number, C75 and C76.

MS GCABASHE: Which bundle is that in?

MR CHASKALSON: Sorry Mr Chairman, maybe I can just clarify. This document is one of a number of documents that all of the parties here have had access to, but haven't actually been part of any formal bundle as yet. So possibly what we should do is, we should simply arrange for copies of the diary to be made and we can hand them in and give them a bundle number.

MR WAGENER(?): Mr Chairman, if I may just assist, bundle 4, page 25 - it's already been included.

CHAIRPERSON: What was that page?

MR WAGENER: 25. Now Mrs White, during the same discussion with the investigating officer, Mr Steyn, he says that you also told him - and I'm going to just translate from C76, that you said that you didn't believe that it was black who killed Janine. Can you recall such a, that you said something of that nature to him?

MS WHITE: No, I don't recall. You know, as I said we had lots, we had lots of meetings, I don't recall everything that was said in every single meeting.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you recall that you - it also says that you suspected, you actually told him that you suspected certain people of being responsible for this horrible deed, can you remember that? - that you actually said to him: "I actually suspect people". That is what he says.

MS WHITE: No, I told that I, I actually told him that I thought the Security, Michael's colleagues in the Security Branch were responsible for it.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, and did you give him a specific name of a person that you suspected?

MS WHITE: I don't recall giving him a name.

MR RAUTENBACH: Don't you recall - and I just want to ask you at this stage because it may be a bit premature to put it to you before Steyn's evidence, but I just want to ask you, does the name Deon Els ring a bell? Did you mention the name of Deon Els to him, as a possible suspect?

MS WHITE: It doesn't ring a bell with me. I'm not denying it, I'm just saying it doesn't ring with me.

MR RAUTENBACH: So what you're saying to me is it doesn't ring a bell but you're not denying, you're actually saying to me there's a possibility that you might have mentioned the name of Deon Els, or aren't you saying that?

MS WHITE: I don't think I - I don't know, I don't think I could have, the name doesn't ring a bell with me, so I don't ...

MR RAUTENBACH: Now at that stage you say to us now that you told him that you thought it was the Security Branch, correct?

MS WHITE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Is that right? That's what you told Steyn.

MS WHITE: I'm actually more under the impression it was the first meeting that we had in the January where I said that to him.

MR RAUTENBACH: But in any event, just to get back to a previous answer of yours, not in one of your meetings with him, despite having suspected the Security Branch, did you tell him of this conversation that Janine had three days before she was murdered?

MS WHITE: No, I definitely didn't. By that time I'd been very, very firmly warned not to mention the Security Branch, and especially after the conversation that I had with him where I did implicate the Security Branch, I was warned in very strong terms not to ever mention them again and not to involve them in my discussions with any of the police.

MR RAUTENBACH: But when were you so warned?

MS WHITE: Sorry?

MR RAUTENBACH: When were you so warned not to mention the Security Branch?

MS WHITE: When I discussed, our conversations or my conversations with Detective Steyn, my brother in no uncertain terms told me not to ever mention the Security Branch, not to drag them into anything and not to drag any names into it.

MR RAUTENBACH: And what about, Mrs White, the conversation? Do you say that's the reason why you didn't mention the conversation?

MS WHITE: I was then told to keep quiet about that conversation as well.

MR RAUTENBACH: But you knew that Steyn at that stage was the investigating officer, that he needed all information to his disposal to solve this murder, correct?

MS WHITE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Because your brother told you not to mention it, you didn't mention it?

MS WHITE: I'd been threatened, I'd had my house broken into, I'd been followed, I'd had lots of things done to me. I really was not going to get myself involved after that with anything where I could possibly have harm done to myself, my family, my brother, from people that I didn't even know or didn't even know what they could do to me. When people can invade your house without, with switching alarm systems off and things like that, it doesn't make life easy for you and you start thinking twice about doing things and saying things that could harm you.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let's just get back to my question. My question is this, your brother told you not to mention anything about the Security Police and you obliged, correct?

MS WHITE: Yes, I had to oblige.

MR RAUTENBACH: Why had to oblige?

MS WHITE: Because I was being thoroughly intimidated.

MR RAUTENBACH: By whom, by the two house break-ins?

MS WHITE: Not only the house break-ins, I had ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: What else?

MS WHITE: I had people following me all the time, I had phone calls coming through too on my phone call, threatening, threatening phone calls. Detective Steyn is fully aware of those things, I made those things very known right from the beginning. I was very angry about it. I've even written to the Attorney-General about things like this. So it's not something that I'm just making up or coming out with at the moment.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mrs White, did you claim at a previous occasion when this hearing took place in Pretoria, did you claim that people were following you there as well?

MS WHITE: Yes, I did. I didn't say somebody followed me, I said I'd had threatening, I'd had phone calls in the middle of the night and early in the morning, unusual phone calls that doesn't normally happened, and I had somebody shooting at my car.

MR RAUTENBACH: Some what?

MS WHITE: I had somebody shooting at my car.

MR RAUTENBACH: Shooting at you car, you had phone calls, what was the phone calls about, what were they about?

MS WHITE: There was nobody on the other end of the phone.

MR RAUTENBACH: Nobody on the other end?

MS WHITE: Nobody on the other end of the phone calls.

MR RAUTENBACH: And Mrs White, to get back to the original question. You knew that Steyn tried his best to find the culprit in this matter, correct?

MS WHITE: No, I did not believe he was trying his best, I believed he was gunning for my brother and only for my brother.

MR RAUTENBACH: I suppose that belief of yours must have changed since your, you became aware that your brother in fact was responsible for killing his wife.

MS WHITE: Very much so, I was very angry about it when I heard it the first time, when my brother put his, or I heard he was putting in an amnesty application for it.

MR RAUTENBACH: So to get back to it, because of those, because you felt threatened and because your brother told you, you decided not to give that information to the investigating officer?

MS WHITE: Well yes, that is exactly why I didn't at the time.

MR RAUTENBACH: Is there not another reason why you would not have mentioned it to him?

MS WHITE: No, no other reason.

MR RAUTENBACH: Because we know you didn't mention it with Beyleveld or with anyone during December or during January.

MS WHITE: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: When you became aware, Mrs White, to your shock, that your brother is a suspect, you couldn't afford or you wouldn't tell them anything about that conversation, correct?

MS WHITE: Sorry? When I became aware that my brother was a suspect?

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes. Am I correct if I say that if you told them about that conversation, your brother is a suspect and you told them about the conversation that took place, that she is going to sink the Security Branch and she wants him to leave the Security Branch, if you gave them that information at that time, it would have been an important piece of evidence for Steyn in his investigation? Do you agree with me?

MS WHITE: No, I don't agree with you.

MR RAUTENBACH: Why not?

MS WHITE: For the simple reason that I never ever believed that my brother had done it, and I never believed that he was up in Johannesburg to do it, my belief all the time was that my brother was in Natal. I fetched him that Saturday morning and I never for one moment believed that my brother had left Natal to go up to Johannesburg. As far as I knew, there were people that were with my brother until 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock, I can't remember the exact times that night. I fetched him that morning and I really thought, and I thought all along that they were just being - what's the word, sort of pedantic in going after my brother. I never for one minute believed that it was necessary to try and even cover him or save him because I didn't believe he needed saving or covering.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let's leave alone your beliefs for a moment. That was one, there was a couple of occasions which you had the opportunity to tell him about that but you didn't. You say you wouldn't tell him about that because you didn't believe that your brother was guilty, correct? Am I right?

MS WHITE: I firmly didn't believe he was guilty.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, and then there was the inquest.

MS WHITE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: And at the inquest, we know now, it's already on record, there once again you never made mention of the telephone conversation, why not at the inquest?

MS WHITE: Because at the inquest again, before the inquest happened I was told once again not to mention anything about the Security Branch, not to mention anything about phone calls or anything that could implicate the Security Branch in anything.

MR RAUTENBACH: So you were content at hiding or concealing evidence from the inquest under oath, is that right?

MS WHITE: I wasn't asked about it, therefore I didn't feel that I'd hidden any information, that I lied about anything. I might not have mentioned it, but I didn't feel that I was actually lying about anything.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mrs White, it's a very interesting way of explaining away the difficulty that you find yourself in. You know what the truth was at that stage, you know there was this conversation that took place three days before she was murdered, you knew at that stage, three days before she was murdered, there was this discussion. You give evidence under oath, you do not make mention of an important fact during an investigative type of inquiry under oath, am I right?

MS WHITE: Sorry, I also didn't even see it, that it was that much of an important conversation.

MR RAUTENBACH: Are you saying, is your evidence now that you don't think the conversation was important?

MS WHITE: Hold on a second, you're saying in my thoughts I thought it was the Security Branch, that was my feeling.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes.

MS WHITE: Nobody else thought it was the Security Branch, they thought it was my brother that had done it.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes.

MS WHITE: So for me, even at the trial, whether I mention about - not the trial sorry, the inquest ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: You see, Mrs White, what worries me is that that conversation is important for both theories, both for the theory that your brother is suspect and for the theory, your theory, that it was the Security Branch. That linked your suspicion ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: Sorry, I don't understand what was so important.

MR RAUTENBACH: You don't understand why it was important?

MS WHITE: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: Are you serious with what you're telling me now?

MS WHITE: No, I'm just trying to ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: You didn't think it was important, this conversation. Is that your evidence, you didn't think that conversation and the contents of the conversation was important?

MS WHITE: No, I'm just trying to establish now why you seem to be asking me why I didn't, or why I thought it was ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: I'm just saying to you ... MS WHITE: ... that important at the inquest.

MR RAUTENBACH: At the inquest, because they wanted to get to the truth of the matter, they wanted to get all the information they could. You knew about the conversation, you knew the Security Branch was mentioned, you knew your brother was a suspect, you didn't tell them, why not? Is your answer because you didn't think it was important?

MS WHITE: No, my main answer or my main feelings on that is that I was told not to speak about the Security Branch, that was one of my main things, I'd been threatened over there, and ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, please carry on, what do you want to say?

MS WHITE: Sorry. And that I also didn't think it was that important. So even thought I'd been threatened and told not to say anything about the Security Branch, I didn't really think it would make that much impact on anything.

MR RAUTENBACH: You see I just want to put it to you, Mrs White, that the reason - this is going to be my submission, the reason why it wasn't mentioned to Steyn in any conversation and the reason why it wasn't mentioned during the inquest was because it in fact never happened, there was no discussion between yourself and Janine regarding this issue that you've given evidence here today about. I just put it to you, what's your comment?

MS WHITE: My comment is that there definitely was a conversation that evening.

MR RAUTENBACH: I put it further to you that you have listened to the evidence of your brother in these proceedings, you have realised that the existence of that conversation could be important to his case and that is why you're prepared to give evidence on the same lines as he did.

MS WHITE: That is not so. May I take one minute and say something to - may I not?

CHAIRPERSON: Unfortunately not.

MS WHITE: Because I - oh, okay.

CHAIRPERSON: They will assist you again when the questioning is done.

MS WHITE: Okay. Because there was knowledge of, obviously not at the inquest before but with the lawyers about that, you know formulating part of my brother's amnesty, I did a letter. So what I'm saying is it wasn't only at the last part of the, or the start of this hearing was the first time that that ever came up.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mrs White, during the inquest you were specifically asked as to when you picked up your brother on that Saturday morning, do you recall that?

MS WHITE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: You stated quite clearly that it was between nine and nine fifteen.

MS WHITE: That's right.

MR RAUTENBACH: You are not on record elsewhere where you stated a different time than the time period nine to nine fifteen, correct? Is there any particular reason why you today in evidence-in-chief attempted to stretch it now up to nine thirty?

MS WHITE: No reason whatsoever. I stick to my story nine/nine fifteen. All I said is it would definitely be no later than nine thirty.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did your brother tell you when he spoke to you, did you ask him how are you going to get to Pietermaritzburg?

MS WHITE: You're talking about that Saturday morning?

MR RAUTENBACH: When you had your discussion about the braai arrangements.

MS WHITE: Yes, as far as I know he was actually going to be in Pietermaritzburg, but he was seeing - I don't know what you call it, colleagues or people that he was doing trading with or whatever it was, he was seeing them until fairly late that night, so there was no need for me to fetch him, or he wouldn't stay with us that evening but that he would definitely be in Pietermaritzburg. He didn't have to come from Durban or anything like that as he was already there.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now you have heard some of the evidence in this forum. The first flight on Saturday morning was at 8 o'clock from Johannesburg to Durban, have you heard that evidence?

MS WHITE: Yes, I heard that.

MR RAUTENBACH: And you say - if I say to you 8 o'clock, do you know how long it takes for a flight from Johannesburg to Durban?

MS WHITE: I'm not sure, I'd imagine between 40 and 50 minutes, I'm not sure.

MR RAUTENBACH: Well the information that we have is that the landing time of that plane was at 9 o'clock. You will agree with me that a person first had to - the plan lands, it has to come to a standstill, people wait before they actually leave the plane, they then had to go into the airport building and then from the airport building they've got to leave the airport building, to get - in his case, got to get to the highway. I want to put it to you that it's almost impossible that he could have made it, could have met you between nine and nine thirty. Do you want to react to that? Are you insisting that he met you ...(intervention)

MS WHITE: My only reaction is that I definitely met him within that time period.

MR RAUTENBACH: You stick to that, at nine thirty?

MS WHITE: Definitely.

MR RAUTENBACH: This shopping that we're talking about after you met him where, your version of it, what did you do, what shopping was it, what did the two of you do?

MS WHITE: Michael didn't come into the shops with me. It's a little shopping centre, there's a grocery shop, there's a little Spar over there - I don't think the bakery was there, I think I stopped somewhere else for the bakery. In any case we just collected a few goods and things to take to my parents' place.

MR RAUTENBACH: Ja, but the shopping, I want to know in the context of your brother, what did you two do, what do you recall?

MS WHITE: He wasn't in the shops with me. I parked the car, I went into the shops, I did the shopping and then we went back home.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, but the shopping, did you do shopping together?

MS WHITE: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: Not. What happened?

MS WHITE: I went into the shops by myself.

MR RAUTENBACH: On your own? Where was your brother?

MS WHITE: He was in the car.

MR RAUTENBACH: He was in the car. In the evidence - in the inquest, at page 404 thereof your brother said the following, he said

"After your sister had picked you up, did you go straight to her house"?

- "No."

"Yes, where did you go?"

- "She bought some things."

"Yes, and then?"

- "I think I may have bought my folks a box of chocolates too. I don't really remember. We went to the shops, we then went home, went to her house, her and her husband's house."

Can you recall that evidence in the inquest?

MS WHITE: Is that my evidence?

MR RAUTENBACH: No, that's your brother's evidence.

MS WHITE: No, I didn't sit in at the inquest while ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: You didn't sit in while he gave his evidence?

MS WHITE: No, no. I was under subpoena, so I could be there for my own ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: But now you recall that he wasn't in, he didn't go into the shops at all.

MS WHITE: No, he didn't.

MR RAUTENBACH: He had a recollection that he bought chocolates.

MS WHITE: No, he ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: And then he qualifies as if he can't really remember.

MS WHITE: He didn't ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: But you sat here in these proceedings and you say, because you heard him saying that he actually stayed behind in the car.

MS WHITE: No, he didn't, he did stay in the car.

MR RAUTENBACH: You say he stayed behind in the car?

MS WHITE: Ja.

MR RAUTENBACH: Because what I find quite interesting is that in the inquest proceedings you also, on page 317 thereof, say the following

"You drove with your own car?"

- "No, I did not, I used my husband's car."

"Your husband's car. And after you picked Mr Bellingan up, what happened then?"

- "We did some shopping and then we went home."

MS WHITE: Yes. Well we did, we went and parked over there, he stayed in the car, I got out, I did the shopping, got back into the car and we drove back home.

MR RAUTENBACH: So you say that you support his version 100%, that he stayed behind in the car when you went in to do the shopping.

MS WHITE: It's not his version, it's actually what happened.

MR RAUTENBACH: I see. That is what you stick to?

MS WHITE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, would that be convenient, Mr Rautenbach? Yes. We'll adjourn the proceedings until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS