Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: It is the 29th of January 1999, it is the continuation of the amnesty hearing of Mr Bellingan. The panel and the parties are as previously indicated on the record.

Just before we proceed, it appears apparent that unless some miracle happens, we are not going to be able to conclude these proceedings today. Can I ask the legal representatives to make an effort to agree on a suitable date to continue and conclude these proceedings in one session.

You would have a better idea as to how long these proceedings are likely to last, but we are anxious to know that when we rise this afternoon, that we would postpone to a date, which will allow us sufficient time to conclude in one sitting.

It might be appropriate, I am not sure, it might be appropriate to look at reserving possibly two weeks, but you must consider that, you are in a better position than we are. We are just anxious to ensure that we wouldn't interrupt the proceedings again when we reconvene.

Could I ask you to possibly try and finalise that in the course of the morning, hopefully by the time that we reconvene after the tea adjournment, and talking about that, due to certain logistical issues, we would adjust the sitting times slightly today. We will take a 30 minute lunch adjournment from one o'clock to half past one, and we will conclude the proceedings at three o'clock this afternoon.

Would you please bear that in mind as well.

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Trengove, do you have any further questions?

MR TRENGOVE: Thank you Mr Chairman, I don't.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR TRENGOVE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Trengove. Mr Nott.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NOTT: Thank you Mr Chairman and members of the Committee. Mr Bellingan, your involvement with Numsa, we have heard over the last couple of days, particularly to the cheques, I would like to know whether you had any other involvement in this particular Trade Union or any other Union and when I talk about involvement, what sort of involvement?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, when I was in the Johannesburg Security Branch, I was active in recruitment of sources and agents, some of whom did operate within the Trade Unions.

Some of them, I handled myself, for example those associated with the Media Workers' Association. Others were handed over to the Trade Union desk and others fell out along the way Mr Chairman.

The exact details at this point in time, I cannot remember.

MR NOTT: You don't recall your own, personal involvement and the details?

MR BELLINGAN: It is as I have said Mr Chairman, the recruitment and then the handling of some of the sources in the Media Workers' Association and then of course, the Stratcom operations too Mr Chairman, there were ad hoc Stratcom operations on an ongoing basis, at the Johannesburg Security Branch and then later on, the broader projects to discredit the Unions, to counter the Unions, etc, which were centralised at Head Office.

MR NOTT: But those are exactly what I am interested in. What were those broader projects that you speak of, what was your involvement in those broader projects, if any?

What specifically?

MR BELLINGAN: Initially Mr Chairman, it was the reorganisation of the structuring of the projects and that I did via the conference at Port Alfred.

MR NOTT: You did via the conference at Port Alfred, I am sorry, I don't understand that. What did you do?

MR BELLINGAN: When I was transferred to Head Office Mr Chairman, I thought I explained it already, but I don't mind saying it again, there was a conference which I was told to get the input from the regions, so we invited people involved with Stratcom, that we knew were involved with Stratcom around the country, from different Security Branch regions, we then all got together at Port Alfred and we kicked the ideas around and formulated a plan of action.

MR NOTT: Okay, and it is those ideas that you kicked around, and that plan of action and business (indistinct) have been described as a strategic plan or something of that ilk, what was your business plan to disaffect these Unions, to create havoc as you have portrayed, what was your strategic plan? What and in particular, what was your role?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, we already had inherited one major project which was the Uwusa matter, so we were the caretakers of that project at that stage.

I was never the Project Manager of any of the Trade Union, the large Trade Union projects, which after that, or during the conference or immediately after it, it was then named Omega, it was then named Project Omega.

I think it was during that conference that we named it Omega.

MR NOTT: What did Omega do, what was it intended to do?

MR BELLINGAN: It was broadly to counter the effect of the revolution via the Trade Unions, the influence of communism, Marxism in the Trade Unions and also to provide some type of plausible alternative at that stage for more moderate workers, Mr Chairman.

In particular it was - the Uwusa matter related in particular to the Zulu speaking segment of the population, it was targeted with that.

MR NOTT: In so far as what?

MR BELLINGAN: Insofar as membership of Uwusa was concerned Mr Chairman, although it was supposed to be a non-racial thing, it was largely Zulu speakers who in fact joined.

MR NOTT: Mr Bellingan, in your strategic plan with the ideas kicked around at Port Alfred, did you as your Stratcom think tank, work out ways of assessing the effects of your unlawful activities at the time, of breaking up Trade Unions and so on, did you have these sort of criteria set out?

MR BELLINGAN: That was an ongoing problem Mr Chairman. It is practically impossible to really know the effects of strategic communication, or psychological warfare in other parlance.

MR BELLINGAN: It was very difficult to actually evaluate and say well, on this date we want to have achieved the following and then how do you actually measure whether you have achieved that?

It is different, some of the ad hoc actions for example, if one is to for example destroy COSATU's printing press, then one knows with some certainty afterwards whether you had done that or not as with the COSATU House operation, but with people's perceptions Mr Chairman, it is another matter altogether, especially on a mass basis.

MR NOTT: So then my understanding is that at this Port Alfred conference, you kicked some ideas around, you targeted for one particular project, the Zulu speaking population of our country and you left without any clear goals set in mind or criteria, which any assessment, any reasonable assessment could be placed on any one of your projects, which had been great, in your words, importance for the safety of the country at the time?

MR BELLINGAN: That is not even close to how it was Mr Chairman. As I said, the Uwusa project was one which we were already the caretakers of, so that was a fait accompli.

What we could do is just rearrange it to try to give it a bit more credibility, etc, etc, etc.

But that formed then once of the main components of the broader operations that would fall under Operation Omega Mr Chairman. It was not by mainstream, I was not the Project Manager, however, I went there with a very clear plan, a very clear management plan in terms of the reorganisation, and when I left there, I had achieved that, but only with the addition that the regions had then bought into that and they felt empowered and a bit less suspicious of Head Office Stratcom Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: What were these regions?

MR BELLINGAN: It, we would have included as many as we could have Mr Chairman. There were 19 regions, I can't recall if we included all of them at the time or not.

Most certainly we would have included all of the main areas Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: I will come back to your strategy and your strategic thinking and planning of operations, later.

With regard to your application Mr Bellingan, you have spoken of contacts in the banking world which could help. Could you just inform the Committee and let us know how you saw and perceived this banking world, what was it, how many banks made it up and so on? What was the banking world known to you as?

MR BELLINGAN: The banks in South Africa Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: With any specifics outside of Nedbank that you had in mind when talking of the banking world, your contacts in the banking world?

MR BELLINGAN: I mentioned it only specifically with respect to the bank that I mentioned over there Mr Chairman, which is Nedbank.

MR NOTT: In Exhibit A, you speak of John Putter not making any success or any progress at Volkskas. Can you inform us about banking contacts at Volkskas that you may have had? What was Johan Putter's role there?

MR BELLINGAN: Colonel Johan Putter's role over there was unknown to me Mr Chairman, it was just mentioned in passing that there was slow progress on that side. That is all Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: Who mentioned it in passing?

MR BELLINGAN: It was either General Erasmus or it was Major Botha, one of the two mentioned it to me.

MR NOTT: In what context, what were they saying to you?

MR BELLINGAN: In the context of seeing what I could do to assist Mr Chairman, knowing that I had some expertise with Stratcom.

MR NOTT: What were they saying, what was happening at Volkskas, why were they disillusioned by the progress of Putter? What did they say about it?

MR BELLINGAN: If I can remember correctly it was simply that slow progress was being made, this is all. Slow or no progress, one of the two.

MR NOTT: What did you understand by slow progress, where was the progress going to? What was intended?

MR BELLINGAN: Simply what I understood Mr Chairman, was that I should get on with it and do something about it as a matter of urgency, that is all that I understood by that.

I didn't bother to ask what.

MR NOTT: Get on with what, I am sorry, get on with what?

MR BELLINGAN: Get on with the operation Mr Chairman, get on with providing assistance in terms of cashing these cheques Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: So it was cheques specifically? And they had seen that Putter wasn't the man for the job, nor the bank for the job, was that your understanding? Volkskas wasn't the bank and Putter wasn't the person?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, it was not entirely, not entirely true. What exactly his role was prior to that and after that with the same type of operation, I don't know, I never followed it up.

All I demonstrated was my own capability in getting the job done very quickly.

MR NOTT: But would it be true to say then, that there must have been some for of assessment of Putter's job and role, of what he was doing, someone made a decision, they assessed it, they came to some form of assessment that Putter wasn't up to it. Against what did they measure that, do you know that?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, I am quite certain that he was up to it, but exactly what he was doing, I don't know. There is - probably simply told me that, to prompt me to also do something, that may have been what they had in mind, and it worked if that is the case.

How successful Johan Putter is, I don't know, he took over from me and I know that he was at least on an academic level, very well up to date with Stratcom.

MR NOTT: Just help me with that thinking, I am sorry, I need to understand that answer. Just talk me through that again.

Can you just repeat that, I am having difficulty following the answer.

MR BELLINGAN: I think I may have been vague, if the question could be repeated.

MR NOTT: You are being vague. I wanted to know why Putter wasn't up to the job, was there any criteria as to what assessment there was against him?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I don't say with any certainty that he wasn't up to it Mr Chairman. I am just saying that that was what was told to me and that, in passing, that he was making slow progress with specific regard to that.

Too many of these cheques were going stale.

MR NOTT: Too many cheques were going stale, so there was some form of count or assessment or criteria against which people would now be measuring, these cheques would come in and they would be looked at or assessed or counted, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: I presume so Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: Because too many were going stale?

MR BELLINGAN: Hm.

MR NOTT: Just with regard to your entertaining of Nedbank officials which you speak of in Bundle 1, I think it is page 78. It is paginated 78, Bundle 1.

It says Brigadier Schoon, Colonel De Kock's boss told me that he could have had me destroyed just like that, and he snapped his fingers. This occurred during a minor dispute at Island Rock, whilst we were entertaining Nedbank officials.

Who were these officials that you were entertaining?

MR BELLINGAN: Some of the top management and I think some people from the credit card division as well Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: Were they being entertained for purposes of soliciting their help and their assistance in forthcoming attractions or what was the purpose of the entertainment?

MR BELLINGAN: I understood it to be to maintain their goodwill Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: Who was feting them, was this the Security Branch?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: Were you in charge of this entertainment?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, I was not, although I did go down with the initial group to make preparations, it was not, I was not overall in charge, no.

MR NOTT: Can you not help us with any specific names at all Mr Bellingan? You know credit card managers and so on, that you speak of, any personalities that may have sprung to life that evening when you were entertaining the,?

Were there any people that you may have said well these are the people we would like to have on our side, you are the personnel man? Any characters that came to mind?

MR BELLINGAN: The only, no Mr Chairman, there were some very senior people there, very senior people.

MR NOTT: So it was really a fruitless exercise.

MR BELLINGAN: I tried to mix with all of them Mr Chairman, I don't recall each and everyone of their names Mr Chairman, but there were senior people.

There were senior people on both sides as a matter of protocol Mr Chairman. We had for example a Brigadier, if I remember correctly, because there was a very, very senior person from Nedbank there.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just interject here please. Was Mr Bouwer there?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Bouwer was not there.

ADV BOSMAN: What is his status in Nedbank?

MR BELLINGAN: At the time, Mr Chairman, at the time his status was the Investigator in Charge of regions, amongst others Northern Transvaal and Sandton as I understood it. There may have been more, but it is those two that I am certain about.

He was the Chief Investigator for any irregular matters.

ADV BOSMAN: I see, so you used the guy who was actually employed to trace this sort of thing, to do the job?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you have this relationship with Nedbank across the country?

MR BELLINGAN: I am not certain of that Mr Chairman, but myself personally, I had an account at Yeoville, I had credit cards, all in false names from Nedbank with the assistance and cooperation of a very, very, it was not open knowledge within Nedbank Mr Chairman, but from my side, and I know other people too, Colonel De Kock and a wide range of us at Unit D had similar facilities Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: But did you have any reason to believe that this was limited to the old Witwatersrand or is it something that you had reason to believe was the kind of relationship that the Security Police had with Nedbank nationally?

MR BELLINGAN: That was most likely the case Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nott?

MR NOTT: Thank you Mr Chair and thank you Committee member, that was my line of questioning was right there. Mr Bellingan, help me if you possibly can. You see, the difficulty that I have is that you are the person that goes out, you are the person that evaluates characters for the Security Branch, you are the person that assesses sources, you are the person that was able and relied upon to make judgement characters for characters then to be employed by the Security Branch in whatever manner.

Yet, you are at a party, an entertainment of Nedbank with officials and persons that possibly could be of assistance, who are of assistance, did you follow up, I want to have names of the particular people that you engaged with, that you are aware of, that you make these assessments and report back to your senior people? Can you not assist me with any of those names at all?

MR BELLINGAN: Actually Mr Chairman, if my memory serves me correctly, this was prior to my starting the Personnel Development Unit, I was still on Stratcom at this point in time Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: This is prior to personnel?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: And your duties even as a Stratcom person would not have caused you to recall particular names or make certain judgement assessments? Is that what you are informing us?

MR BELLINGAN: I most, more than likely, in fact, I am quite certain I did have names written down of contact people Mr Chairman, but I wouldn't go around with a notepad writing their names down there. If they said to me, if you have any problems, here is my business card or something like that, the chances are 99 percent that that happened and I would have had those cards and those names written down or recorded somewhere Mr Chairman, at the time.

MR NOTT: Bastiaan Bouwer, was he instructed by Stratcom to find employment at Nedbank? Was he placed there?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, no he was not.

MR NOTT: How did you come across him, how was he your contact in the banking world as you described it?

MR BELLINGAN: I knew that Mr Bouwer had taken employment at Nedbank and I knew him from my previous association with him at Stratcom Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: Had you worked this relationship as a working relationship, as a relationship that you would like to fete and ensure that it is kept up and ensured that it assists you? Did you go to any lengths to ensure that?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: In what way?

MR BELLINGAN: It was encouraged to keep contact with people like that.

MR NOTT: And how did you go about this encouragement?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, for example, I don't remember in the specific instance, but for example people who we wished to thank for just being available as contacts, we would at the end of each year, we would request gifts for them, bottles of whisky for the men, Chivas Regal or something like that, nice chocolates for the ladies, sometimes, there may have been something like that, perhaps the odd taking of the person for lunch, to talk to him, to answer questions to maintain the person's goodwill towards the Security Branch.

We had, we cultivated many such contacts broadly across society Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: And how was he rewarded for his particular friendship and a kinship for the Security Branch, Mr Bouwer, what was he given at Christmas time, I take it it wasn't the chocolates?

MR BELLINGAN: I gave him the amount that was drawn on the one particular occasion Mr Chairman, that is all I can remember giving him.

MR NOTT: Which was the R10 000, was that?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: Bouwer's, when Bouwer left the Security Branch, was the reason because being fired for fraud, defrauding the Security Branch, was that the reason why he left?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman that is not true.

MR NOTT: We have a version that indeed, that will be so, that he was fired from the Security Branch for fraud?

MR BELLINGAN: No, that is not true. In fact he went to work for National Intelligence after he left the Security Branch.

MR NOTT: For how long was that?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall Mr Chairman, it must have been a relatively short period of time, because he went to work at Nedbank after that.

MR NOTT: Just coming back to your regions and the general sweep of interceptors, what is described by Mike Leech as postal and telephone intercepts. Can you at any way assist us in regard to how that project took place in the various regions?

MR BELLINGAN: I think that refers to WH10 and WH11, on the national basis.

MR NOTT: Yes.

MR BELLINGAN: But each region would have a different code for that, for example at Johannesburg, WH11 was Operation VVR394, Operation WH10, was VVR395.

MR NOTT: Would these particular regions also have as their contacts, contact persons within banks and so on?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: And would you come to know of these particular contacts in the banking world?

MR BELLINGAN: If I needed help in the region, and I did not already have a contact there, then I could call on someone in the local Security Branch whom I knew and trusted Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: Was there any occasion when you had to do that particular job of contacting someone in a particular region with a particular bank?

MR BELLINGAN: I cannot recall now Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: The one incident you do recall of course, is Bastiaan Bouwer at Nedbank in Pretoria?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: That was the sole incident and specific example of your use of contacts within the banking world?

MR BELLINGAN: No, that is all that I can recall now Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: You were approached by General Erasmus to take cheques and to bank them. Upon closure of this particular account, did you go back to General Erasmus and informed him that indeed you closed the account, that you had ceased operating the Numsa account?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, it was just the controversial one that Janine knew about at the time, that was in doubt. I've got no doubt that other operations would continue, but I never went back to him. It was understood that the problem would be taken care of Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: Was there any assessment made of this particular project as it were, small project as it has been described really? Any criteria against which you measured it, of the success?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: Why would that not be? How would you then - answer the question, I am sorry I interrupted you.

MR BELLINGAN: Even with the larger projects Mr Chairman, we would do a report back for example to the State Security Council for large projects, but for ad hoc actions, just the opposite was required, and that is one of a complete blank out of any information concerning it.

The very last thing that one did, was to record any information at all, documentary or otherwise, about such operations Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: During the 1980's, the Unions were particularly troublesome for the State, why would there be a blank out on that particular project when this surely would be quite a critical area in regard to assessment of how your success was being measured?

Why would it not be?

MR BELLINGAN: While I was at Stratcom we used to make presentations Mr Chairman, concerning the broader projects. At the end of every year, we would make such a presentation. I think I can remember on one occasion to Min Vlok, I can remember he was present in a room at Wachthuis, we made a presentation to him.

I can remember talking to the sub-committee of the State Security Council and in particular when it came to the time for remotivating the budget, one would have to put down some kind of justification and go through the motions of saying the things are very effective and very good and attach some stuff of a less sensitive nature Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: But not this?

MR BELLINGAN: Most definitely this wouldn't have been recorded Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: Your, the idea behind the Numsa defrauding and the cashment of cheques as I understand it, it was your idea? You taught others how to do it, you opened the account, you went about the business, you closed and said let them get on with it, is that correct? That in a nutshell is what you have testified to?

MR BELLINGAN: No, these things were existing Mr Chairman, it is just that my first pile of cheques, I noticed that there was a preponderance in it, of Numsa cheques, and it just seemed like something I could do immediately, and it is something I did.

It then followed that Stratcom would be able to utilise this procedure in particular, it was Dave Walkley that I was kind of acting as a mentor for at that point in time Mr Chairman, but such things were happening with respect to other cheques Mr Chairman, other organisations.

MR NOTT: What was happening, the same system of encashment, opening bank account?

MR BELLINGAN: They were being cashed Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: In what banks?

MR BELLINGAN: Other bank accounts that were opened too.

MR NOTT: Which banks?

MR BELLINGAN: I cannot recall Mr Chairman, it was not something that I went to go and investigate or anything like that. I cannot recall other banks in other regions that were involved.

MR NOTT: But then they were being successfully used, not so?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: Why would General Erasmus then approach you and say well, we have met a dead end with old Mr Putter at Volkskas, they are not giving us the service that we want, you must go to Nedbank? If this was a process that wasn't your creation and why would he then approach you?

MR BELLINGAN: This was Stratcom Head Office Mr Chairman, I presume somebody across the road at Wachthuis must have said something about it. Maybe General Basie Smit, maybe Brigadier Le Roux, somebody, maybe even Colonel Horak must have wanted to know what progress is being made over here.

Someone must have said something about that and I got the impression that people were not getting along and that these cheques were going stale, and that they needed my help, and so I responded accordingly Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: Mr Bellingan, it doesn't help me. You talk of a system across the country in various banks, unnamed, by various unnamed people which is working according to what you have just testified now, which is working, but for some reason General Erasmus says approach Nedbank or approaches you specifically to carry out a job which is not in your line? It wasn't your job? Help me with that.

MR BELLINGAN: It was my job up to a very short time before that, I had just started the Personnel Development Unit Mr Chairman. I was known to be an expert with Stratcom firstly, secondly I never asked any questions Mr Chairman about it.

MR NOTT: You see, I am now struggling with two lots of evidence, one is that you have created this ingenious idea of defrauding Numsa banking, assuring that the cheques are cashed here at the end, you have Umsa, you have the passports, you have this whole modus operandi, which no doubt you found an ingenious method of fraud and you leave that, you move on.

You say well, now I hand over this baby to others to create and possibly something huge will grow of it. Why did you not then talk to and inform and give a particular report, to those who may well be interested, to General Erasmus who has approached you and said help me, we are in dire straits across the country with this particular project and programme?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, once we had cashed the first lot of cheques, people did ask me how did you do it, and I did explain to people. I think it was Major Botha who asked me, I explained it to him, and he laughed about it, that is very good, carry on and I did. It was no big ingenious plan, it was very, very simple Mr Chairman, it was no effort whatsoever.

MR NOTT: Was this in passing that Major Botha asked you or was it a report to him, how did this engagement occur?

MR BELLINGAN: I cannot recall Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: And outside of Major Botha, there was no one else that you then spoke of this particular project and how it should operate?

MR BELLINGAN: I may have mentioned it to General Erasmus too.

MR NOTT: So in reality it died when you closed it, the bank account? When the bank account was closed, the idea that was behind UMSA, really died with the closure, is that correct?

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

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Nott, if I might just interrupt, I am just losing the trend here, the threat.

How would they have known that you had successfully cashed those cheques, I am just not with you on that? Just explain that to me, just before you go any further, you are just losing me on that one.

Why and how would Botha come back to you on that issue?

MR BELLINGAN: Either myself Mr Chairman, or Walkley had discussed it with Major Botha who was on the Stratcom floor, on the floor that I had been working on. He ran the Trade Union desk, so one of us would have discussed it with him, and then most likely there would have been, you know the cash that was drawn to hand over, to show we have cashed some cheques, the exact words, the exact time, place, etc, I do seem to remember it was in his office, in Major Botha's office Mr Chairman.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, but you don't seem to recall whether it was yourself or Walkley who discussed this with him, just help me there. Who did it, who discussed it with him? Who told him what the amounts were and why did you then go back to him, he hadn't asked you to open the accounts?

MR BELLINGAN: He was the one in charge of the Trade Union desk Mr Chairman, so it was logical for me to go back to him. I couldn't go and bother General Erasmus all the time. I just did what he had suggested and then from then on, it was really up to Major Botha to see how this money would be utilised, if they wanted to do any discrediting actions, if they needed it for the purchase of something, that couldn't be motivated, if they needed it for some operational purpose, but yes, straight after getting it, opening the account, I don't know who mentioned it first to Botha, whether it was myself or Walkley, but I did certainly have a conversation with Major Derek Botha about that.

ADV GCABASHE: You see, I was under the impression that you didn't discuss the cashing of the cheques, the amount in the bank, any of that with anybody, because you were not accountable to anybody at all, all you did was dispense money to certain people on request and you essentially were just in control of the whole account?

Why and where did Botha fit into this, and if you told him initially that you had indeed cashed the cheques, how much longer did this relationship of reporting back to Botha, go on? I mean there may be some other evidence that you want to share with us about some form of accountability, I really don't know? Just help me with that.

MR BELLINGAN: I understand. The case was that this matter needed to be fully within the intention of the Trade Union desk Mr Chairman, it was not something that fell within the Personnel Unit at all.

After my discussion with General Erasmus, after I managed to open the account with the assistance of Basie Bouwer, when it all had gone smoothly, then I went to Major Botha and we took it from there basically.

Everyone that I gave money to, knew very well what was the source of that money, it was not a question that the money was coming from the Secret Fund Mr Chairman.

ADV GCABASHE: Maybe I will understand it even better as you go on. Mr Nott?

MR NOTT: Thank you. You speak of giving money to those and those persons actually knew where the money came from. What purposes were the money given for when you handed it over?

MR BELLINGAN: That wasn't explained to me Mr Chairman, but I have no doubt it was used for what we would regard as bona fide purposes. In other words anything which could assist the Security Branch in achieving objectives, and then of course in my case, I think I have explained already, I used it for things like the Industrial Information Services thing, in fact I scratched through my things last night and I found two receipts, most likely it will correlate with withdrawals found on these days. I haven't checked actually myself yet, but here is two receipts, one from the 10th of May and one of the 20th of June 1989, relating specifically to Industrial Information Services, which printing for example, it is expensive, printing additional matters at the operation, which were difficult to motivate without having to misrepresent on paper what we needed the money for, Mr Chairman. It was far better to just utilise this money.

MR NOTT: This money, how was it handed out, how was it doled out? Was it handed out to a waiting group individuals?

MR BELLINGAN: I can only recall giving money to three people and that is to Basie Bouwer, to General Erasmus and to Derek Botha.

MR NOTT: You have testified to that, is there no one else that you can actually recall giving any amount to?

MR BELLINGAN: That is all I can recall Mr Chairman. I may very well have given to somebody else, but I don't recall.

Certainly this wouldn't have been an open secret. It was only a very select group of people who knew about it Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: You spoke yesterday of CC's being created for particular purposes. You mentioned one, the Information Services you have just now alluded to. What were the other CC's names?

MR BELLINGAN: I can recall one called Psychometric Services, which prompts my memory further, and that is in terms of purchase of test material as well, which I bought for example second hand, where it would be very difficult to get a receipt from for example the NIPR, a psychologist who was no longer practising, selling material. I can recall at one stage buying the test material for cash from the Numsa fund as well.

MR NOTT: Any other CC's that may have been mentioned, that you created, these flag companies?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I can't recall any more Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: The Mico Property Holding CC, just assist us with that particular CC?

MR BELLINGAN: That was a CC started solely for the purposes of putting a tender in on the Underberg Trout Hatchery, which was coming up for tender by the Natal Provincial Administration.

My father, my sister and myself, had intended to put in the tender, and we did Mr Chairman, we put in a tender.

MR NOTT: This tender, now as I understand the members, they were as you say Michael, yourself, your father Colin, and was it Judy?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: 33_ each, holding membership interest in this particular CC?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: What was the tender amount for, how much did you tender?

MR BELLINGAN: We tendered if I am not mistaken, R140 000 Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: And would you split obviously the interest, would that be divided equally?

MR BELLINGAN: No, the NPA had in principle accepted that payment would be made, interest free over 10 years.

MR NOTT: Yes.

MR BELLINGAN: Once a year, annually over 10 years. We were very unlucky not to get it, one person beat us with the tender Mr Chairman, and then that was the end of the CC, we closed it down.

MR NOTT: This particular hatchery, how would it have been owned, it would have been owned by the CC and managed and run by?

MR BELLINGAN: Well, it would have been impossible for me to do as I was in Pretoria, it would have been my father Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: This particular CC which your sister spoke of at the inquest to this particular tender as you say, this CC was formed on the 23rd of March 1989?

MR BELLINGAN: It may have been, I don't recall Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: Yes, I have the documents in front of me, much the same time that you approached Walkley to open an account, March 1989 in regard to Nedbank, is that not right, the same month?

MR BELLINGAN: It may have been Mr Chairman, if it was, it was purely coincidental and the one had absolutely nothing to do with the other.

MR NOTT: The property holdings was also changed as I understand, to Mico Property Holdings, is that correct, Mico?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, as with the nature of these things Mr Chairman, we were not in agreement as to what should happen exactly, and within my family, I felt the best thing to do and everybody felt that with this business matter, the correct thing to do would be to register a CC, so that it was done correctly and there would be no family squabbles over it, no differences of opinion because I didn't always get along with my family Mr Chairman.

That is the way that I wanted to go about it. I registered that thing for that purpose and the person who registered it, he put my name there, and my sister or somebody commented oh, M. Bellingan, and here we are tendering for a Trout Hatchery, so we changed it to Mico, being Michael and Colin. That is all Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: I am not with you, why couldn't you use your name to tender for a Trout Hatchery as M. Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: It was just a simple matter of keeping the family happy Mr Chairman, that was all.

MR NOTT: My understanding was that there would be some difficulty with M. Bellingan tendering, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: I picked up the vibe from the family that they thought I was being egocentric, that is all. I just did it to keep them satisfied, that is all.

MR NOTT: You say that you dissolved this particular CC, you closed it, when was that?

MR BELLINGAN: Actually if I remember correctly, a friend of mine needed a CC and after we had no longer any use for it, I think that the person reimbursed me the costs I had incurred for it in the registration thereof, and he utilised it for his wife.

In fact he changed it to I think Body Lux CC or something like that, Body Beautiful or something like that, it was some slimming machine business that his wife insisted on starting.

MR NOTT: What was the name of this friend?

MR BELLINGAN: Roger Adams Mr Chairman.

ADV GCABASHE: When did you say you dissolved it, you didn't answer that question?

MR BELLINGAN: Well, we didn't really dissolve it.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, but when did you transfer it to your friend?

MR BELLINGAN: It never operated at all, there was no operation, it was dormant Mr Chairman.

ADV GCABASHE: When did you pull out of it?

MR BELLINGAN: Simply when Roger mentioned this thing, I don't recall the dates Mr Chairman.

ADV GCABASHE: That is what I would like to have, a date, just a general idea of the date.

MR BELLINGAN: I can't remember, perhaps there is a date there, I don't remember Mr Chairman. It just lay dormant until Roger mentioned that his wife wanted this thing, and I said well, what about this.

I explained what it cost and he agreed to that Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: You can't recall the date?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I cannot recall the date.

MR NOTT: Was it not the same date as the Numsa account was closed?

MR BELLINGAN: That would be a coincidence Mr Chairman, if it was.

I hope the Advocate is not suggesting that the two have anything to do with each other, because they do not Mr Chairman. If there is such a suggestion, then I would like to see any proof, because there isn't any.

MR NOTT: What we have put before you is that at the same time that you approached Walkley in March 1989 to open a particular Nedbank account, so there too was a CC that was formed in March 1989, for the purposes as you described of a Trout Hatchery.

MR BELLINGAN: Sorry, I missed the question.

MR NOTT: No, you have asked the question, I have answered what it was.

MR BELLINGAN: There is no connection between the two whatsoever Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: So you protest.

MR BELLINGAN: That is the truth.

MR NOTT: The attack against Numsa and the work of this particular project and other strategic designs against Numsa, what was your ultimate aim to be achieved when carrying out the type of projects that you have described to this Commission?

What were you hoping to see and in particular here, I am talking about Numsa?

MR BELLINGAN: Reduce the resources of the Union Mr Chairman, and at the same time, to sow dissent and dissatisfaction amongst their members and then on an inter-organisational basis, and then on an inter-organisational basis, between their donors and them, and between the people within this country, the companies that were supporting them as well Mr Chairman.

I have said it before, I don't mind repeating it.

MR NOTT: No, you have said it indeed, before, and that is why - just it concerns me that there is no particular as I have said to you before, any gauge of your progress and that is what I would like to find out.

Did you see any effect of these particular projects to your eye, to your professional assessment?

MR BELLINGAN: Just the cripto's that were submitted Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: The what?

MR BELLINGAN: The cripto's.

MR NOTT: Help us with that.

MR BELLINGAN: It is an encoded telex message which we did discuss previously, they are in one of these bundles over here, talking about the financial crisis within Numsa.

I may have mentioned it in my evidence in chief. They are attached here somewhere, but certainly there is nowhere that we would have reported that to. It just would have, it did come to Major Derek Botha's attention, and perhaps in the pub or somewhere, he just would have said to me, you see, you know excellent work, or things are working or something like that.

It is absurd to suggest that that should have been submitted to the State Security Council or something like that. There never was anything like that, other than the report backs on the major things which I have mentioned already. On none of the ad hoc activities was there such a formal report back Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: You spoke yesterday of a Charles Asatu, can you elaborate on that particular account?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I can't Mr Chairman, it is just an idea that comes into mind.

MR NOTT: It was an example, you say it wasn't an existing account that was held by a Charles Asatu?

MR BELLINGAN: I think I may have mentioned it at the time, to say look, there are other things that can be done too, but I have done N. Umsa, if anyone wants to do something else or if they did it already, I don't know.

MR NOTT: That was suggested, you made that suggestion, you can go along these particular lines?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: By using acronyms, full stops in particular, and so on?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: That was then discussed? Was this upon the closure of the Numsa account then, these particular examples that were given?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall when it was discussed Mr Chairman. More than likely it would have been, that would have been the appropriate time, yes. It may have been before as well.

MR NOTT: How would you have suggested, how would it have come up? How would you have suggested this particular example?

MR BELLINGAN: In the context of the fact that such a project, the opening of such an account, is a finite project Mr Chairman, there is no way such a thing can run indefinitely. I mean that specific bank account cannot run indefinitely, it would have to be opened and closed and as much as possible laundered through it as quickly as possible, and then something else opened Mr Chairman.

In that context firstly, and then secondly I did inform the people that I was closing the account down, there was dissatisfaction with me and the only person who knew the reason at that point in time, that I knew of, whom I discussed it with, was General Erasmus.

I did not provide Walkley with reasons, I did not provide Basie Bouwer with reasons, I did not provide Derek Botha with reasons, nobody except when I was called to General Erasmus about the problem, that Janine was talking out about this.

MR NOTT: And then you said to him, I will close the account?

MR BELLINGAN: Or it was closed already, we would just withdraw the last money. I don't recall Mr Chairman, but I had been alerted to the problem already before I went to General Erasmus because I had already, I noticed documentation going missing, I already had the conversation with Charles Mendelow.

Thereafter Janine if I remember correctly, yes, it was after that that she in fact contacted General Erasmus. After that I was told to go to his house, which I did.

MR NOTT: You see, I am still confused as to your particular report about the closure of the account.

Notwithstanding it was an ad hoc project, it was centred and directed at a particular Union, the second largest in the country, at the forefront of the struggle for democracy in this country and yet, you have no clear idea as to what and how you reported upon this particular project itself.

MR BELLINGAN: There was no reporting Mr Chairman, other than the informal discussions that I have spoken about. Other than the handing over of money, there was no reporting.

If someone had requested me for a print out of the account, I would have done so. I in any case, did not clean the post box, and I am quite sure bank statements, would have gone to the post box. I am quite sure there may have been the odd query from Nedbank that would have gone to the Security Branch post office, which was a general post box used in Midrand.

I didn't clean it out.

ADV GCABASHE: Can I just ask, was there a credit balance when you closed the account?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I had agreed to make it look credible in terms of the fact that somebody is closing the account, it would have looked a bit funny if the account was just closed with a sum of money in it Mr Chairman.

I reduced it to as close to nil as I could, allowing for the fact that there would be some administration fees, I didn't have to withdraw to the very last cent. Nedbank would have written off if there were a few cents left.

ADV GCABASHE: Just help me with this, the time between taking the decision to close the account and the actual closing of the account, just give me the time frame and then give me an idea as to the amount of money that would have been there, when you decided to close it?

MR BELLINGAN: I do not recall Mr Chairman, I do not recall. Perhaps the actual statements might be of some assistance there.

ADV GCABASHE: But it won't assist us in terms of your decision to close and the actual closure, just that time frame. That I am sure, you can give us?

MR BELLINGAN: There is a date on the letter which is attached, I don't recall the date.

ADV GCABASHE: That is August.

MR BELLINGAN: August 1991? So it would have been then shortly thereafter that the money would have been out of the account Mr Chairman, no in fact, it would have had to have been prior to me sending the letter.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes.

MR BELLINGAN: It would have had to be prior to me sending the letter Mr Chairman, most likely the statement will reflect that. I don't recall the actual tactical detail Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nott?

MR NOTT: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Piet Mogai which you make reference to in your application, please tell me your relationship with this gentleman?

MR BELLINGAN: Piet was an Askari, who had a close relationship with Brigadier MacIntyre, who drew him to Stratcom when we were at Maritime House.

Thereafter Piet came with me, to work under General Erasmus when we went to work there. He stayed on Stratcom if I remember correctly.

MR NOTT: In relation to assisting you with the creation of accounts, Numsa accounts and so on, what was his particular role?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Piet never assisted me Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: What did he assist you with?

MR BELLINGAN: If I had asked him to do something, I am quite sure he would have done it, but he didn't assist me with the Numsa accounts.

I mentioned purely the fact that I heard that Piet had then been the one to open the Namedi Umsa account, while he was still on Stratcom. He did not do it under my instruction or with my idea, Namedi Umsa was not my idea.

There were other black operatives involved in other parts of the country too, who they are, I don't recall. They also opened accounts and obtained such of these withdrawal cards, but to have a name like Namedi Umsa, it is impossible to walk in, even with a Swaziland passport, and Nicholas Umsa, people still assumed that I had disguised myself as a black man, which wasn't the case Mr Chairman.

For example, a witness at the trial said she had seen, Lorna Smith said she had seen a photo of me disguised as a black man. It is not the case, it was the form that Basie Bouwer took out of the account, it was my passport photocopied, it just looked blackened, my beard look blackened, etc, etc. The presumption, Swaziland passport, it just go to show how unreliable witnesses are, but it was my photograph but with a name like Namedi Umsa, you are not going to get away with - I am no speaking about myself, I am speaking about Lorna Smith when I said that. In other parts of the country, it was black operatives that were used Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did they open this Namedi Umsa account?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't know Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Which bank?

MR BELLINGAN: I presume it was after I closed the Nicholas Umsa.

CHAIRPERSON: At which bank?

MR BELLINGAN: I presume it was, I am not sure actually, I believe they got some identification cards from the post office, from Mr Leech to assist them with that purpose, and it may have been Nedbank, but those type of identification cards, were not accepted by all the banks.

I know that they were accepted for example, by some of the building societies. I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: You are not sure where they opened the account?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't know Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: You see, why I ask you about Namedi Umsa is that we, as you know, had an forensic accountant who looked into the particular accounts, and we saw between the two withdrawal slips, much the same type of agencies, not the same type, same agencies were used, Namedi Umsa as was Nicholas Umsa, withdrawing certain amounts.

Can you throw any light on that, and help, and assist the particular Commission? I am talking about Rivonia, I am talking about Midrand, I am talking about those particular ATM's which seem to be the preferred choice of yours when drawing monies?

MR BELLINGAN: Is this is reference to Namedi Umsa?

MR NOTT: Yes?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I don't Mr Chairman, I had nothing to do with Namedi Umsa whatsoever, other than maybe having had something to do with the idea initially. I don't know, and the fact that I closed the account down.

Indirectly I may have had something to do with it, but I don't know anything about it. The first time that I saw any documentary proof of it, was either at the inquest or the trial or something of that nature.

The forensic accountant that I know about, that you spoke about, I think that was at the time that I was approached in the prison, by Numsa who at the time they told me they would not be opposing my application. So it appears it is not only witnesses that are unreliable Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: Yes Mr Bellingan. In regard to Numsa itself as a Trade Union, you have thrown little light on the strategies, specific strategies other than this particular ad hoc project that you were involved in, I have elicited nothing as I understand from you, regarding the strategy for Numsa, what it sees as objective against it, how they detailed it, how you saw it, I have heard nothing, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't see it that way Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: Just coming back to Colonel Vic MacPherson, what role did he play in the Numsa operation?

MR BELLINGAN: I can't think of any role that he played, other than cheques arriving at his desk Mr Chairman. Vic was the Head of Stratcom at the time, Derek Botha would have reported to Vic MacPherson.

What he reported, I don't know. They were both I think, Majors at the time, both senior people.

MR NOTT: Mr Chairman, just bear with me please. Mr Bellingan, the area within which you live, is well known within the Johannesburg Northern Suburbs to be an affluent area, an area well to do. Your answer to Adv Trengove yesterday or the day before, in regard to how much you earned was quite frankly a pitiful sum, a sum which hardly can warrant the abode in which you chose to reside. Have you any explanation as to how you continue to live in a lifestyle which quite frankly was beyond you?

MR BELLINGAN: There are two different things here Mr Chairman, the one is a suggestion of a lavish lifestyle, which I reject categorically. That never was the case, never has been the case, I don't think it ever will be the case, but anyway.

The second is the abode itself, the dwelling. There were no lavish furnishings, Lorna Smith testified to that already. There has been an inquest, there has been a lengthy investigation, there has been a trial, there has been absolutely no such proof that I lived a lavish lifestyle despite the fact that people have tried and tried and tried to prove it.

There has been no proof at all that I put any of this money to my own use, whatsoever. What I did do, was in a wise manner, invest in firstly a flat which I bought for R11 000 in Berea and which I sold, it was never even registered in my name, I sold it on my tripartite agreement, put down R1 000 deposit at the time, I sold it for R37 000.

I then bought a stand in (indistinct) an acre, which I subdivided, I bought it for R23 500 and I subdivided it and I sold half for R39 000 and I built the residence on the other half, which I sold for R120 000.

I then bought the house in Gallo Manor for less than R100 000 if I remember correctly.

MR NOTT: When was that?

MR BELLINGAN: In Gallo Manor.

MR NOTT: When?

MR BELLINGAN: In 1986 Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: You then sell it later on, how much did you sell it for?

MR BELLINGAN: R200 000 and something Mr Chairman, R280 000 perhaps, I don't recall.

MR NOTT: In your application to emigrate to New Zealand you disclose a sum approximating 170 000 odd, New Zealand dollars? Can we have any comment upon that amount? Sorry R274 000.

MR BELLINGAN: It is approximately, that was done by my bank manager Mr Chairman, he drew up a statement of assets and liabilities and he gave me a figure which I converted to dollars.

It was roughly two to one at the time, New Zealand dollar to South African rand.

MR NOTT: The bank manager drew it up?

MR BELLINGAN: I attached the form from First National Bank, to my application Mr Chairman, it included, I am not quite sure how he did it, but it includes life insurance policies and things like that.

MR NOTT: Was that figure an accurate figure or was it false like the rest of the application, which you have admitted to?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall Mr Chairman, but I did rely upon a discussion with someone in the bank, the manager in the bank at the time. It was just a form that he filled in in pencil Mr Chairman, if I remember correctly.

It included furnishings, it included everything, replacement value of furnishings, fridges, paintings on the wall, everything like that Mr Chairman, cash in the bank, insurance policies, etc, etc, etc.

MR NOTT: Mr Bellingan, you didn't discuss Janine's intentions to expose the Security Branch, did you?

MR BELLINGAN: Excuse me?

MR NOTT: You never discussed with anybody Janine's intentions to expose the Security Branch, or the operations that you were involved in, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Not at the time of the incident Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: Which incident, sorry? Which incident?

MR BELLINGAN: The incident for which I have applied for amnesty Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: Mr Bellingan, it is suggested, and put forward, that you took Janine's life for personal motive, to protect as Adv Trengove so articulately put yesterday, your own skin, is that not the case?

MR BELLINGAN: It is not at all the case Mr Chairman.

MR NOTT: There is no political motive at all, but one of - laced with career ambition, career hope and so on, is that not right? To protect yourself?

MR BELLINGAN: Sorry, could you just repeat that part please?

MR NOTT: There was no political motive for your particular actions of taking Numsa's cheques?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, that is incorrect, there was a political motive.

MR NOTT: No political motive in killing your wife?

MR BELLINGAN: That is incorrect again Mr Chairman, there was a political motive.

MR NOTT: We will leave it at that. Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NOTT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Nott.

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, Cornelius. I act on behalf of Dave Walkley and Vic MacPherson. May I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You represent two of the - Mr Walkley you say, and Mr MacPherson?

MR CORNELIUS: Correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I assume we will get to Mr Wagener after you then? All right, proceed.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Bellingan, did you draw from the ATM's on these various accounts, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: On the account as I have stated Mr Chairman, which was the Nicholas Umsa account.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you ever draw from the Geldenhuys account?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, only the amount that I have mentioned, which was not drawn by me physically.

MR CORNELIUS: This is the one amount for approximately R10 000 minus the lunch to pay Mr Bouwer for his services rendered by Nedbank?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: You say that the instructions came from high ranking officers, Brigadier Erasmus, to open this false account?

MR BELLINGAN: Amongst other things, Mr Chairman, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Did he appreciate that you had to exercise a healthy control over this bank account?

MR BELLINGAN: I understood that I operated it the way that I should have operated it Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: So if you say should have operated, it is a responsible operation of the account?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, it was very responsible, it was very sensitive.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, and that would result in some form of accounting here?

MR BELLINGAN: I am not sure in what sense the Advocate means accounting, but certainly not in the sense that has been suggested so far, in terms of reporting to the State Security Council or analysing the success of the thing somehow or other.

MR CORNELIUS: No in a normal, very simple form of accounting, a normal debit, credit account?

MR BELLINGAN: The bank statements were available Mr Chairman. In fact the post box was, if my memory serves me correctly, was cleaned by people at Stratcom. It may have, let me leave it there.

MR CORNELIUS: This post box, is a post box used by yourself on a previous occasion, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, if I am not mistaken, it was first opened just after my transfer to Head Office, when I was on the Stratcom Unit myself and it was opened I think in the name of Progressive Promotions, if I am not mistaken.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, but the bank statements would go to Stratcom and eventually will go to you, I would assume?

MR BELLINGAN: No, they never came to me Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Where did the bank statements go to?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't know Mr Chairman, I suppose they were just destroyed by one of the Stratcom personnel.

MR CORNELIUS: Is that a responsible, healthy control of this money?

MR BELLINGAN: Well, the bank statement had nothing to do with the physical control of the money Mr Chairman. If anyone wanted a bank statement, of the people who knew of this operation, then they would have got it from Major Botha at Stratcom.

MR CORNELIUS: I see. So there was another form of accounting then done, bar the bank statements, you didn't reconcile with the bank statements, you held your own set of books, or did you not?

MR BELLINGAN: There were not books Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: How would you then know who took what as far as the money is concerned?

MR BELLINGAN: I wouldn't know Mr Chairman, except the money that I used and the money that was requested of me, that is all.

MR CORNELIUS: You are saying that if General Erasmus at that time, I think he was a Brigadier, would telephone or call Bastiaan Bouwer, he would immediately be able to draw a bank statement and know what is going on with the appropriated stolen Numsa money?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: It will be silly for any junior officer to apportion a piece of the money for himself?

MR BELLINGAN: I think so Mr Chairman, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes.

MR BELLINGAN: I agree with the Advocate.

CHAIRPERSON: You are saying that you drew on your instructions, my client, Dave Walkley drew an amount of R10 000 minus the lunch, R9 750. What happened to the balance of the money?

MR BELLINGAN: Perhaps the Stratcom people could explain that Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Not perhaps Mr Bellingan, you were instructed and you gave my client instructions, to open this account, place himself on risk and you don't know what happened to the balance of the money?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: That is reckless control of this account, don't you agree?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, I was satisfied that it would be used for bona fide operational purposes.

MR CORNELIUS: No Mr Bellingan, it is reckless control of this account, what happened to the balance of the money? You drew R9 750, that means my client according to your testimony, that is why I am upset with your testimony, appropriated approximately R23 000 for himself, up until June 1989?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, with respect to my learned friend, the evidence was never that Mr Walkley misappropriated money for himself, the evidence was that Mr Bellingan did not know what he used the money for, but that he would have used the money, he accepted that he would have used the money for bona fide purposes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that is the position.

MR CORNELIUS: I thank my colleague, I will rephrase it Mr Chair.

Mr Bellingan, are you saying that my client had carte blanche to utilise the account and utilise the money for operational services?

MR BELLINGAN: For anything that would have fallen into the parameters of the work of Stratcom, Mr Chairman, where Mr Walkley was working at the time.

MR CORNELIUS: So he had carte blanche to draw on this account what he felt he needed?

MR BELLINGAN: What was felt was needed Mr Chairman, and yes, the answer would be yes.

MR CORNELIUS: I think the, you have just destroyed my microphone.

MR BELLINGAN: It must be part of the Stratcom.

MR CORNELIUS: I am back.

MR BELLINGAN: I think someone is trying to tell him something.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you. I am back on the air Mr Chairman, thank you.

Did you ever request reports from Sergeant Walkley on how he utilised the funds in your, in the Geldenhuys account?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Wasn't it your duty as your officer to request this type of report?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, he reported to Major Botha if my memory serves me correctly.

MR CORNELIUS: Sergeant Walkley was a very junior officer in 1989, is that correct, compared to you?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, but he was still a trusted member of Stratcom.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, but if you gave him an instruction, he would obviously carry it out?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I don't even think an instruction would have been necessary, I think he would have done it even if it was a hint or a suggestion Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, due to the fact that you had a seniority position as far as he is concerned?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: And he would do that to the point of duty, where he would expose himself, personally, where he is in full view, go into a bank and assist you to draw R10 000 to pay Mr Bouwer for his services rendered?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, and that would obviously protect you against not being exposed drawing the money?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: You see because my client maintains, he says that he is faithful and he was loyal and he at all times carried out your instructions. If you requested money, he drew it, and he gave it to you?

MR BELLINGAN: As I have put it to the Chair, within the parameters of what I have said, that is true Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: I see, thank you. My instructions are further that in approximately June 1989, you requested him to return the card to you of the Geldenhuys account and he in fact, did return it?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, I never had that card at any time.

MR CORNELIUS: What happened to the card?

MR BELLINGAN: I have no idea Mr Chairman, it never was in my possession. I never asked anyone to explain it to me.

MR CORNELIUS: Wasn't it your duty to find out and call on Walkley and say but where is this Geldenhuys ATM card?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, I was on the Personnel Development Unit, Walkley was on the Stratcom Unit then.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, but the credits Mr Bellingan, were coming from transfers which you were facilitating from the Nicholas Umsa account? Is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: The money came from Nicholas Umsa, yes Mr Chairman, up to a certain point in time, when I closed it down.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. That point in time is before the very controversial R30 000 Genesis Educat cheque?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, we will get to that cheque. You were facilitating the transfers of the credits into the Geldenhuys account. Didn't you request Walkley what happened to the balance of the money after you drew the R10 000?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Could he have given it to Botha?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Could he have given it to Erasmus?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Did Erasmus ever call on you to account to him, what was going on in the account?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, except in respect of the fact that the Nicholas Umsa thing apropos Janine talking out.

MR CORNELIUS: Did Erasmus ever request money from this account from you?

MR BELLINGAN: Actually he didn't request the money from me Mr Chairman, such requests came from Major Botha. I would then just give it to the General.

MR CORNELIUS: Did that happen in fact?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: What amounts?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: And I see on page 391 of Bundle 1, you indicate where you say who was involved in this operation, money not used for operational purposes, approximately line 15 Mr Chair, money not used for operational purposes, directly went to Major Derek Botha and Brigadier Erasmus.

This is the sort of surplus, non-operational money, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: What I mean by that is money not used by me for operational purposes, would go to them for operational purposes Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: So wasn't it your duty to call on Walkley and say that the balance of this money must be returned to Erasmus for further use in the department?

MR BELLINGAN: Presumably this was happening by Stratcom, Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, but look you initiated this account. Didn't you call for the balance of the money that was left?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, I was satisfied enough for that not to have troubled me, that it would have been used for bona fide purposes.

MR CORNELIUS: I want to put it to you Mr Bellingan, that the reason why you on the face value, did not call for the money, because you were utilising it for your own, personal benefit?

MR BELLINGAN: It has been put to me so many times by so many different forums and yet, strangely enough, there is absolutely no truth, because that never, ever happened Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes Mr Bellingan, it is easy to deny it, but if I refer you to Bundle 2 of the documents before this tribunal, and I specifically, do you have it before you, I refer you to page 646, you would notice there is an Annexure 1, a signature card signed Geldenhuys.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes sir.

MR CORNELIUS: My client has instructed me that that was in fact the signature that he had to sign, I think you testified to that effect as well, is that right?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that looks like it Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: The second signature, Annexure 2 that is the Umsa signature, which is your false signature to put it in that way?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: And then on Annexure 3 page 647, it is an application for transfer of funds, there is a P. Geldenhuys which signed there as well, which my client instructs me, was a blank form which you presented, he must sign there, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: No, in fact Mr Chairman, on this particular occasion, Dave went across to give this form in at, I think, at the main office, I was too busy or there was some reason, I don't remember the exact reason why he signed.

MR CORNELIUS: But you would agree that it was actually nonsensical for him to sign because it says, this is a payee, pay to, it is not necessary to sign there, the most important signature is the authorization signature at the bottom, which is yours?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, if my memory serves me correctly, I filled this out and then gave it to Mr Walkley. I just never filled in to whom it should be paid.

Obviously he would have filled in P. Geldenhuys. I just forgot to fill it in.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, but it resembles - all right, if you look at Annexure 1, P. Geldenhuys and you look, I specifically draw your attention to the "l", at Annexure 3, the Geldenhuys signature, then I will take you to Annexure 5, on page 648, the second portion, there is also a Geldenhuys signature?

MR BELLINGAN: I see it Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, now if you compare this last Geldenhuys to the two previous Geldenhuys signatures, it is quite obviously as a matter of fact, it is very obvious that the last Geldenhuys signature, is a forgery.

MR BELLINGAN: Except that it is not a signature Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Well, it purports to be a signature on page 648, Annexure 5?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: It is marked Annexure 4, I am terribly sorry, as a matter of fact.

MR BELLINGAN: Annexure 5 and Annexure 1 ...

MR CORNELIUS: Just below it, there is written Annexure 4 and there is a Geldenhuys, do you see it, page 648?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I see it Mr Chairman, 648.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. This signature, or this Geldenhuys differs vastly from the Geldenhuys on page 647 and page 646?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, it differs Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: So it is obvious that this last Geldenhuys is according to me, a forgery?

MR BELLINGAN: According to me, it is written by the same person Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: No, but if you look at this Geldenhuys on page 648 and the two previous Geldenhuys', the handwriting doesn't even coincide?

MR BELLINGAN: It may be that there are slight differences Mr Chairman, but the two signatures are substantially the same.

MR CORNELIUS: Why are you supporting the signature on page 648? I mean if you look at it, just look at the "l", the line of the "l" on page 647 and 646, draws through, it doesn't make a loop? I mean to an experienced eye like yours, it is an obvious forgery?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't know where this Annexure 4 comes from. Perhaps it would help me if it was explained to me where it comes from.

MR CORNELIUS: It is the back of the cheque of Annexure 5.

MR BELLINGAN: I don't know this cheque at all Mr Chairman, so my knowledge of the fact that Dave Walkley was involved, is limited only to the fact that I know that he was involved in the Geldenhuys account, not to the knowledge of the cheque itself.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, no, I am not ...

MR BELLINGAN: It would be incorrect for me to say that this was Walkley who made this signature. It looks substantially the same, but there are differences now that it is pointed out to me Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. I am not saying Walkley did it, I am not making any inference to any person now, I am just asking your fair comment on what I am seeing on these pages, and to me as a legal representative, it is an obvious forgery?

MR BELLINGAN: There are differences Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, massive differences.

MR BELLINGAN: I haven't seen 648 before Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: I am not asking you if you had seen it before, I am just saying, just your opinion, you are looking at this document, there is a massive difference in this signature?

MR BELLINGAN: I will concede there are differences Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Fine, so you don't want to concede to massive differences, you say there are small differences?

MR BELLINGAN: There are differences Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: It is obvious it is not the same person who signed the Genesis Foundation Grassroots Educare cheque at the back?

MR BELLINGAN: I can't comment Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Fine. You see Mr Bellingan, why I am saying that, you are denying that you have never seen this cheque, trying to avoid saying that it is the same person or not the same person who signed it, because you have knowledge of this cheque?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: This cheque I presume in preparation you must have looked at it, because it is bound in the documents, is reflected in the Geldenhuys account.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I am aware of that now Mr Chairman, from yesterday.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. And it was paid in on the 4th of September 1989, as a R30 000 credit on the Geldenhuys account.

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: And that is after June when my client according to his instructions, returned the card to you?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, it is more likely that it was done after I closed the Numsa account.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, but my client's instructions are that he at that time already had returned the ATM card to you, and I am stating now to you that it is after June that this money was paid in.

MR BELLINGAN: I think the Advocate's client's memory has let him down Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: I won't comment on that, it is possible.

In the diary of Janine, the deceased, on page 120 which was tendered yesterday by my learned Counsel, Mr Trengove, on the 26th of September 1989, on page 120, she makes a very interesting note in her diary.

If you look Mr Chairman and members of the tribunal, towards the second last paragraph in this diary, big fight, told me that he would give me R30 000 to go, told him that would be a pleasure. Coincidence, isn't it?

MR BELLINGAN: I see it Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes? And per chance, R30 000 was paid into the Geldenhuys account and on the 4th of September 1989, and on the 26th of September, we get this interesting note in the deceased's diary? What have you got to say about that Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: There is quite obviously no connected between the two whatsoever Mr Chairman, I have already explained in my amnesty application about the R30 000 to which I was referring, and that was in relation to a discussion with Mr Mendelow, and the attempt to blackmail me Mr Chairman.

I was quite willing, it was on, I would say my actions, that Janine went to see Mr Mendelow in the first place because I told her if you are unhappy, go and get a divorce.

This was the response that I got from Mr Mendelow, Mr Chairman, and I was quite happy to get divorced at that stage. I would have been quite happy to pay Janine the R30 000 divorce settlement, its got absolutely nothing to do with Educare or Grassroots or Philip Geldenhuys or Nicholas UMSA or Numsa for that matter or any of those things Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: But where were you going to get the R30 000 from Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: I would have crossed that bridge when I got there Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: But you were at the bridge, you are making a tender, you are entering, you are making an offer to your wife, you are saying I will give you R30 000. You are making a tender to her, because you are not disputing, you are not saying she lied when she made this entry in this diary, are you?

MR BELLINGAN: I've got no idea what Janine's state of mind was when she made these entries in the diary Mr Chairman, but one thing is for certain, if it came to that, I would happily have arranged for that divorce settlement, Mr Chairman, either via an additional bond on the house, via selling the house, splitting up the assets, or whatever.

MR CORNELIUS: No, but if you had the money, you would pay her?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, it was not a fait accompli at all. In fact, we decided to go the other route.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, can I just ask for a short moment, we have been running out of documents and I have given mine to Mr Bellingan, could we just have that sorted out because I need to look at the documents?

CHAIRPERSON: All right, Mr Cornelius, just give Mr Du Plessis a moment.

MR CORNELIUS: Wouldn't this be an appropriate time to adjourn for the tea break, then we can save some time?

CHAIRPERSON: But it seems as if Mr Du Plessis has got his document, in which event we will adjourn at eleven o'clock.

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Bellingan, where would you have got the money from?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I would simply have taken a bond on the house, if that was, what year was that?

MR CORNELIUS: 1989.

MR BELLINGAN: 1989, I would have taken a bond on the house Mr Chairman, or a loan, a bond or a loan Mr Chair.

Possibly if I got a good offer on the house, I would have sold it Mr Chair.

MR CORNELIUS: I refer you to page 629 of Bundle 2.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, just afford us an opportunity again please. Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: If you peruse page 629 of Bundle 2, this represents a deposit envelope made up for a deposit in the Umsa account, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: And it is made up of small composite amounts resulting in R975-29?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: And if we peruse the following pages, page 630 and we follow, we would see bar for the one amount of R26 000, you had to compile small amounts to make up the deposit? Is that right? It is page 632, two amounts give you R5 600, and so forth?

What I am saying basically is you went to a lot of trouble to make up the deposits?

MR BELLINGAN: It was not trouble at all Mr Chair. As the cheques were there, I deposited them.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes.

MR BELLINGAN: Some of them, not all of them were useful, because some of them didn't have the acronym Mr Chair, and others of course, had a fullstop behind every letter of the acronym, it was only those that said Numsa with the acronym without any fullstops that could be used, Mr Chair.

MR CORNELIUS: I see, but all those cheques that could be used, you obviously used and deposited them?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chair, in that time period.

MR CORNELIUS: But you go to the trouble to deposit these cheques, make them up and the minute you have done a transfer to the Geldenhuys account, you lose interest in it? It doesn't make sense to me?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I still had the withdrawal card Mr Chair.

MR CORNELIUS: No, sorry, you misunderstood me now. You paid into the Numsa account and then you do a transfer to the Geldenhuys account, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: That is partially correct, some of the money were transferred.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. The minute the money was transferred to the Geldenhuys account, excepting the R10 000 you lose interest in the money, you just let it flow out between your fingers?

MR BELLINGAN: It was not a priority for me Mr Chair.

MR CORNELIUS: But what is the sense of transferring money then into the Geldenhuys account?

MR BELLINGAN: For Stratcom to utilise it Mr Chair.

MR CORNELIUS: At the time when you opened the Geldenhuys account, or received instructions as you say, which I doubt, but when you opened, instructed my client to open the Geldenhuys account, you were under tremendous pressure from Janine, isn't that so?

MR BELLINGAN: What kind of pressure is the Advocate referring to?

MR CORNELIUS: Well the pressure which my learned colleague, Mr Trengove elaborated for two days, that she was threatening to expose you, threatening to say that you were using the Numsa money for your private accounts, that you were enriching yourself, going to General Erasmus. I mean that was a whole issue of the murder eventually, but that is the issue, she was threatening to expose your Numsa handling of money, isn't that so?

MR BELLINGAN: I told Janine to contact General Erasmus Mr Chairman, there is no ways that I could be blackmailed over that issue. She was welcome to contact him about it, because she was not going to get any of that money, plain and simple.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes.

MR BELLINGAN: And as for the suggestion that, the comment that I never received any instructions like that, I acted upon authorization and it is like I have testified to this Committee, Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, but she was threatening to expose you as far as the money was concerned, isn't that so?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chair, amongst other things.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, but that is my question, it is a very simple question.

At that time, if I read this diary, she was exercising one tremendous amount of pressure on you?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes.

MR BELLINGAN: By which I responded that she should contact General Erasmus.

MR CORNELIUS: That is not the question. She was putting pressure on you Mr Bellingan, isn't that so?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, and conveniently at that time, in March, beginning of March 1989, the Geldenhuys account is now suddenly opened up? Isn't that so?

MR BELLINGAN: The opening of the Geldenhuys account, had absolutely nothing at all to do with Janine Mr Chairman, or any pressure that she may or may not have been putting on me at the time.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, bar that she wouldn't have known about the Geldenhuys account, if you go through the documents, she obviously didn't know.

MR BELLINGAN: No, she did know about the Geldenhuys account, Mr Chair, and she knew who was operating it too.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you tell her?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes I did, Mr Chair.

MR CORNELIUS: Why did you disclose all these secrets in breach, to your wife, she is putting all this pressure on you, she wants to divorce you and you want, in the process of closing the Umsa account, now you disclose to your wife, you opened a Geldenhuys account, that is very improbable Mr Bellingan, really.

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chair. That is not how it worked.

MR CORNELIUS: Why would you tell her?

MR BELLINGAN: How it worked is that, as far as I know, Janine knew nothing at all about the Geldenhuys account, until I told her about it. I told her about Stratcom, Dave Walkley's involvement, Basie Bouwer's involvement, etc, etc, which was after I had made the decision to attempt to reconcile with Janine, and then in fact, that was after I was satisfied that we had reconciled and it was during our vacation, which would have been in 1990 Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Bellingan, the Geldenhuys account was opened on the 18th of March 1989. Do you recall that?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chair.

MR CORNELIUS: At that time, there was incredible pressure on you about the Numsa funds?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chair, I don't think that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. When did you close the Umsa account?

MR BELLINGAN: I think it was July.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. Why did you close the Umsa account?

MR BELLINGAN: Because of Janine's pressure in that regard Mr Chair.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, now four months prior to that, you were under tremendous pressure from Janine, that is when the Geldenhuys account was opened.

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, I never would have allowed Dave Walkley to open that account, had there been pressure like that from Janine then. It just doesn't make any sense and it didn't happen like that and it wouldn't have happened like that.

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Bellingan, it makes a lot of sense to this Committee, why you would have opened that account, that was a convenient way of moving the money into a name which is totally untraceable, it's got nothing to do with the stupid name N. Umsa, which is obviously Numsa, it is now P. Geldenhuys, it will never be traced?

Don't you agree?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chair, I am quite satisfied that the only reason Dave Walkley agreed to help me, was because he knew it was for bona fide operational purposes, and that is why he made the arrangements and that is why he did what I requested him to do in that instance.

For that reason only and no other reason.

MR CORNELIUS: That is the most elaborate evasion of my question, with absolutely no answer. Please answer my question.

MR BELLINGAN: What is it?

MR CORNELIUS: You see, the answer is so elaborate that you forget the question.

My question is that the fact that the silly N. Umsa account, the funds are now being moved into P. Geldenhuys, it would be totally untraceable, isn't that so?

MR BELLINGAN: Hopefully with the assistance of Mr Bouwer, it would be untraceable Mr Chair.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, and that is the reason why you opened the Geldenhuys account, because of the Umsa account was running beautifully and smooth, with no threats, it wouldn't have been necessary?

MR BELLINGAN: No, the two accounts had a different nature Mr Chair, as I have explained. The Geldenhuys one potentially could have had a longer life than the N. Umsa one. In the nature of things, the N. Umsa one was controversial, it was right at the coalface as it were of the irregular transaction, of the fraud, of the misrepresentation.

Chances of it being discovered were reasonably high Mr Chair.

MR CORNELIUS: But the fact remains it would have taken the pressure off you, Janine was putting pressure on you and that is the probable reason why you opened the Geldenhuys account?

MR BELLINGAN: Janine was putting pressure on me because of the utilisation and the WH10 operation Mr Chair.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, but Mr Bellingan, the fact remains you could open the Geldenhuys account, channel the money into it, it won't be connected to Numsa and you could close the Umsa account, full stop, easy?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chair. There would be cheques still coming in on an ongoing basis, we still needed the primary account.

MR CORNELIUS: Right. You say you've got no knowledge of the R30 000 Genesis cheque?

MR BELLINGAN: Not at all Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, do you want to move to something else?

MR CORNELIUS: This will be an appropriate time for an adjournment, thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn for 15 minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, any further questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: (continued) Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Bellingan, I refer you to page 390 of Bundle 1.

Page 390, the bottom of the page, you state in your amnesty application, other accounts were opened to facilitate the transfer and withdrawal of funds. Do you have that?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: What other accounts are you referring to?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't know specifically Mr Chairman, but I know it had been done in the past, and would be done in the future again, after I closed N. Umsa.

MR CORNELIUS: It is a vague statement, you see, you refer on page 390 to the opening of the Geldenhuys account and then you refer to the Nicholas Umsa account and then you come to the other accounts were opened to facilitate, you state it actively, you stated it that it was a fact, other accounts were opened?

Are you with me, not a speculation?

MR BELLINGAN: Well, I know for example of the Namedi Umsa account Mr Chair, but the other, I don't have first hand knowledge of that, these are the two that I have got first hand knowledge of Mr Chairman, and that is why I mentioned them.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, well I mean when you bring an amnesty application, you make a full disclosure, so if you refer to other accounts, you know about the Namedi Umsa account, did you state it in your application?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't have direct knowledge of that Mr Chair, if I had stated it, it would have been under some type of obligation to mention a further range of these accounts, which I simply couldn't remember when I drafted this document Mr Chair.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you remember the Namedi Umsa account?

MR BELLINGAN: I may have Mr Chair.

MR CORNELIUS: Not may have Mr Bellingan, you are the author of this application, please make it easier for the Committee.

Did you or did you not remember the Namedi Umsa account?

MR BELLINGAN: Most likely yes, Mr Chair.

MR CORNELIUS: I still don't follow your answer, does it mean you remember, did you remember it when you drew the application?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: No why didn't you put it in your application, we are here for a full disclosure? Why didn't you just state so that the Committee would be in a position to investigate the Namedi Umsa account?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I did say other accounts were opened. In terms of investigation, I had contact with the Investigative Unit, there were questions that they put to me and which I felt like answering, I would have done so Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Please just satisfy me, did you forget to mention the Namedi Umsa or did you purposely not mention the Namedi Umsa?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, I don't recall. I just said other accounts, and that is true.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, but my question Mr Bellingan is very clear, did you purposely not mention Namedi Umsa or did you forget to mention it, or is it just drafted badly?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, it would have been pointless of me to try to conceal it, because it was well known, it had emerged at the inquest, it had emerged at the trial. It was not something that was within my direct knowledge, and I am applying for amnesty here, for specifically my part, directly with the Nicholas Umsa and then also for my part in my instructions to Mr Walkley in respect of the Geldenhuys account Mr Chairman, not in respect of the Namedi Umsa account, Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, with respect, as far as I can recall, Mr Bellingan did testify about the Geldenhuys and the Namedi Umsa account in his evidence in chief.

I don't want to unnecessarily object Mr Chairman, but I don't think or my submission is that this line of cross-examination is taking us nowhere, unless my learned friend wants to say that Mr Bellingan did not make a full disclosure, even though he testified it in chief, because it wasn't in his amnesty application.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that could very well be the position. Mr Du Plessis is quite correct, he did in his testimony refer to the other accounts, but I think you are referring to the document?

MR CORNELIUS: I am referring to the document, that is correct.

We will leave that at that, thank you Mr Chair. So bar the Namedi Umsa account and the Umsa account and the Geldenhuys account, did you know of any other accounts?

MR BELLINGAN: I can't think of any at the moment Mr Chair.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you utilise any other junior officers to run accounts for you?

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, I would have mentioned it if I had remembered anything like that.

MR CORNELIUS: Fine. Do you know if, in your personal knowledge, if General Erasmus applied for amnesty for this Numsa scandal?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I believe a lot of police officers never applied for amnesty for things which are not gross violations of human rights.

MR CORNELIUS: Due to an interpretation of the Truth and Reconciliation Act, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: I will put it to you in closing that it is my submission that you utilised the funds for your personal use.

MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, and I wish that somebody will bring some proof if that is the case, because that is not the case. There has been a lengthy investigation by a very hostile Investigating Officer, a very competent Investigating Officer.

There has been an inquest with a very, very senior staff appointed by the Attorney General's office, there were representatives from Numsa over there, two of them. There was a trial, with a very, very senior Prosecutor Mr Chair, and an assistant. It has always been suggested and there is no proof, because it simply did not happen.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes Mr Bellingan, there is no proof, because no records were kept. There was no control over this money, and that is why there is no proof.

Thank you Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cornelius. Mr Wagener, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Bellingan, yesterday you said that you don't trust my clients and that you would be prejudiced should my cross-examination not be concluded by the end of today, do you remember that?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I do Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: How would you be prejudiced?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, there has been a long history to this matter. In the first instance, I am aware that Mr Wagener's clients have already produced a document for whatever purpose, maybe Stratcom, whatever, in which for example Colonel Taylor has participated. It is a little booklet called The Other Side of the Story.

It differs quite substantially with what I have been saying over here Mr Chairman, and what I have said at the other amnesty forum before which I have testified also Mr Chairman.

What I am trying to say is there is perhaps a vested interest. Further, I have already been approached in a way in which there has been an attempt to influence me, which disturbs me, it concerns me, concerning the use of these funds. I don't know if it was Mr Wagener's client or not, but it is an ex-member of the police, who is now currently with National Intelligence as I understand it.

Some of Mr Wagener's clients may have vested interests in this matter. My sister has had some threatening phone calls, Mr Chairman. I doubt whether it is from the African National Congress. I said it is a procedural issue simply because I would have liked to have dealt with the matter immediately without affording anybody who may or may not have a vested interest Mr Chair, in having an opportunity to prejudice me, because I believe I have been prejudiced over here already.

MR WAGENER: Is that the full answer?

MR BELLINGAN: That is my answer at this point Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I wouldn't have done this if this was in a normal court of law, but I feel again obliged to place this on record, and that is that - and I am not saying that it has any bearing on Mr Wagener or his clients or anybody else, just in relation to the evidence about Mrs White having received threatening phone calls, I myself have received not threatening phone calls, but very strange phone calls.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, are you insinuating that any of my clients are threatening you, and if so, particulars please.

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman, no particulars.

MR WAGENER: So they're not threatening you?

MR BELLINGAN: Perhaps the best thing for me to do would be to withdraw completely any inferences against Mr Wagener's clients at this point in time, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Well will you please do it so that we can proceed.

MR BELLINGAN: I think that would speed things up, so please consider it done, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Thank you. Mr Bellingan, for some years -or maybe I should ask you this first, do you have an academic qualification regarding psychology?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: And for some years your tasks in the police were related to psychological issues like behaviour patterns, personality etc., is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Where you were expected to evaluate personalities, draft profiles on them, things like that?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: How would you describe your own personality?

MR BELLINGAN: I used to be an extrovert, Mr Chairman, I am now an introvert.

MR WAGENER: Do you see yourself as a violent person?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Do you see yourself as someone who would resort to violence in order to settle arguments?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Have you never done so in your life?

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

MR WAGENER: Have you done so in your life?

MR BELLINGAN: I'm capable of defending myself, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, answer the question please, yes or no?

MR BELLINGAN: I think the answer must be yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Can you tell us more about this answer, what happened?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I - perhaps the advocate should be more specific, Mr Chairman, I don't know what he's referring to.

MR WAGENER: Well you have just said that you did resort to violence in order to settle arguments, now I'm asking you to give us particular please.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, if in my life at any point, if someone had arbitrarily attacked me I would have defended myself and if I had to defend myself with the use of violence then I would have done so, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Have you ever, Mr Bellingan, attacked anyone not in self-defence?

MR BELLINGAN: Only in respect of my amnesty applications, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Were charges of assault ever laid against you?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Never in your life?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: I'll get to the page now, Mr Bellingan, but I saw in your late wife's documents that one night you came home bragging that you had these charges withdrawn apparently of assault. That's bundle 5, page 115, towards the top. Can you explain to us what that was all about?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't know what Janine's referring to, if it is her, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Yes, she's, or was she sucking this from her thumb then, is that what you're saying?

MR BELLINGAN: I have no idea what her intention was, Mr Chairman, if she wrote this down.

MR WAGENER: Well Mr Bellingan, is it the truth or not, what is stated there?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I would remember it, Mr Chairman, if it were the truth.

MR WAGENER: So nothing like that every happened?

MR BELLINGAN: I've never been charged for assault, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Do you see what is there, what she says there

"He came home...."

I'll read it.

"He came home under the influence having been celebrating his getting off of an assault charge".

Do you see that?

MR BELLINGAN: I see that, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: And you say that that's not the truth?

MR BELLINGAN: It's not the truth, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: She made this up?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't know what Janine was thinking. I don't know who the "he" is either, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, if some of my clients would come and testify that you were in fact a person who at times resorted to violence in order to settle even petty arguments, would they be lying?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Then we'll move on, or maybe a last question on this score, Mr Bellingan. Especially in your time as a policeman, did you consume excessive alcohol at times?

MR BELLINGAN: We ...(intervention)

MR WAGENER: Yes or no?

MR BELLINGAN: I did use alcohol, Mr Chairman, but not, I think excessive would be correct, at times, Mr Chairman, yes.

MR WAGENER: And that you often behaved violently while under the influence?

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

MR WAGENER: So if evidence to that effect would be given, would that be a lie?

MR BELLINGAN: It would be a lie, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, I want you to deal with your career in the South African Police, briefly. Can you please repeat to us what did you do and in what capacity as a policeman after your initial training? In what units did you serve and in what capacity?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, after basic training I was transferred directly to the CID, the Detective Service. I became a detective over there. I was promoted to Detective-Sergeant. In 1981 if I remember correctly, I was transferred to the Security Branch. In 1986 I was transferred to head office and in 1993 I went off on pension, Mr Chairman, with a certificate of good service.

MR WAGENER: Maybe I should be more specific. When you served in the Security Branch in Johannesburg, in what section, or I think at times they called it desks, did you serve?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chair, I started on a desk called Black Affairs, thereafter I was transferred to the 9th floor which was investigations other than those that were done on the ground floor, which was referred to as Black Affairs. I was on the 9th floor basically until I was transferred to Stratcom at head office, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: While in Johannesburg, were your tasks aimed at investigations or the obtaining of information, can you be more specific please?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair, there was intelligence work involved, there was field work involved. There were some interrogations and that too. I am for example reminded by one of the guards with me today, of a prisoner in the prison who I had interrogated and he had been sent to prison.

MR WAGENER: You've used the word "field work", I'm not sure whether all of us understand what is meant by that.

MR BELLINGAN: It's a general term for a Security Branch operative, including administrative tasks such as enquiries from head office, etc., etc.

MR WAGENER: Is it aimed at the gathering of intelligence?

MR BELLINGAN: It's one of the things, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: What else?

MR BELLINGAN: As I've said there were many enquiries that came in. There was also reports from Operation 395, 394. There were other administrative matters too, for example security clearances. There were queries from other divisions, other regions. There were, as I've said, interrogations, there were also Court cases, but mostly the 10th floor did the interrogations.

MR WAGENER: And while you were there, Mr Bellingan, as a field worker inter alia, were you ever involved in, if I may call it military type operations against whoever?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chair, I'm not sure I understand. Perhaps it's sort of riot control that the advocate's referring to.

MR WAGENER: No, no, no, sorry, I have in mind - were you as a security policeman ever involved in something like counter-insurgency operations, things like that where you for instance had to use firearms?

MR BELLINGAN: Oh yes, Mr Chair, in Soweto and Alexander we quite regularly had to go and make arrests etc., and at an early stage of my career in the Security Branch we did not take with the uniform section.

At a later stage, it may even have been after someone was shot, we used to take with the uniform people that had perhaps concentrated more on that type of service. But in the early stages we would just go and do it ourselves, put on a bulletproof vest, go through, make the arrest.

If there were some terrorists to be chased, for example I was duty officer once when a terrorist was caught in Alexander and he in fact had pulled out a handgrenade to throw at the Security Branch and he had fallen on, tripped on it and fallen on it. General Erasmus in fact came out to the scene that day.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, I'm going to ask you to confine your answers to your own experiences. You know I've sat here and I've listened to your evidence all week and it seems as if you tend to answer on behalf of the complete police force of the time. Will you please confine your answers to what you yourself did and what you yourself was involved in please. Do you understand?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I do, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: So I'm not really interested in what other policemen did in other situations that you've heard of in the passages or in the pub or wherever, okay?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: After your transfer to Pretoria head office you've told us that you joined what you call the Stratcom section, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman, I was transferred there.

MR WAGENER: Transferred, okay. Can you please give us again a definition of what you regard as Stratcom?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, it used to be called Political Warfare and Psychological Warfare. The unit was in fact so named in the police prior to my transfer there. ...(intervention)

MR WAGENER: So would that - sorry, sorry.

MR BELLINGAN: Strategic Communication was divided into two, on the overt level and on the covert level. On the overt level it pretty much referred to communication actions, Mr Chairman.

On the covert level it included let's say far deeper communication actions as well also as active measures, which include the range of things that I've been talking about. It includes destructive acts against property and people. Pretty much what I've already described as what the Russians referred to as active measures.

MR WAGENER: So do I understand you to say that Stratcom was basically psychological warfare?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Would that be opposed to military warfare?

MR BELLINGAN: It's a - on definition would be a continuation of war by other means, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Sorry, by what?

MR BELLINGAN: Continuation of war by other means.

MR WAGENER: Other means apart from traditional military means?

MR BELLINGAN: Stratcom doesn't refer to your classical military type conventional conflict, Mr Chairman, no, but in the context of politics and political warfare those type of things couldn't be ignored completely. When I refer to Stratcom I'm not referring to that. That is, according to the 80/20 definition that would be the 20 part of it, the 80% would be the political warfare, the strategic communication, the psychological warfare.

MR WAGENER: Maybe we can try and be practical, Mr Bellingan, if I put a proposal to you. Suppose the Security Branch would get information that certain terrorists would enter the country for whatever purposes and there would be an ambush and there would be a shootout and people would perhaps be killed, would that be a Stratcom operation?

MR BELLINGAN: It does not sound like Stratcom, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Is there any example where Stratcom can involve the killing of the enemy physically, killing shooting, in the conventional military sense?

MR BELLINGAN: Not the conventional military sense, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: So when you refer to the destructive element of Stratcom, it would something like smashing the window of a car, things like that?

MR BELLINGAN: It would include that, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: But do you understand the question?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I do, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: So the destructive part would merely mean breaking a window or slashing a tyre of a vehicle?

MR BELLINGAN: It includes those types of things, Mr Chair, but it doesn't end there.

MR WAGENER: But it won't include a conventional military operation where opposing sides fire at each other and kill each other?

MR BELLINGAN: No, it generally doesn't include that, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: When were you moved from Stratcom as such to the section that you call the Personnel Development Section?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chair, that was early in 1989, shortly after my transfer from Unit G which was strictly Stratcom, to the amalgamated Unit D.

MR WAGENER: So from early 1989 onwards you were not with Stratcom any longer?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct, Mr Chairman, although my duties included the personnel side of Stratcom too - agent sources, handler, etc.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, you were not any longer directly involved in Stratcom operations, isn't that so?

MR BELLINGAN: Not from the nature of my work, no Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Yes. So if you would get involved in Stratcom operations after that, would that then be private enterprise on your side?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: If it's not your function?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Why not?

MR BELLINGAN: I still had to perform functions on request, which included things that didn't fall into the immediate day to day tasks, Mr Chair. But it wouldn't have been anything out of the ordinary for me to assist any of the Stratcom or Intelligence people at Unit D, Mr Chair. That was where I was seated and that is what I did.

The fact that I concentrated and developed a staff dealing specifically with the recruitment and the assessment of people, etc., etc., doesn't mean that I was no suddenly bound to a desk, not at all.

MR WAGENER: Your section, wasn't the only function of your section to provide a specific professional support service to the other sections in the big Intelligence Unit?

MR BELLINGAN: That was one of the functions, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Wasn't that the only function?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: What were the other functions then according to you?

MR BELLINGAN: Training, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Yes, that's part of a support service.

MR BELLINGAN: It included sensitive assessments.

MR WAGENER: Yes.

MR BELLINGAN: Including as I've said, the polygraph etc., etc.

MR WAGENER: Yes.

MR BELLINGAN: It also included anything else on request or anything else that I saw would further the cause, Mr Chairman. There was a greater cause to the service.

MR WAGENER: I'm not sure, Mr Bellingan, whether I understand this last answer; that you could do anything that you thought served the cause. Is that what you said?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chair, anything that I felt that was needed to be done, yes.

MR WAGENER: Is this your evidence, Mr Bellingan, that even though you were officially in the Personnel Development Section you were authorised and entitled to do anything else if you thought it as part of the cause?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chair, I didn't come into this unit in isolation, I came in there with a background, I came in there with specific training which included specifically Intelligence and specifically Stratcom. The reason why I was trusted with this function and the professional expertise that the advocate speaks about, and also the reason why that function was taken away from the Behavioural Science's Institute is because of the fact that I was trusted, because of the fact that it was a security risk for other people to do those functions. So I didn't come in there in isolation, just to sit down now and file personnel records, it had absolutely nothing to do with my tasks at all.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Wagener, may I just come in here?

Mr Bellingan, according to your evidence, to whom did this general authorization to do everything one felt that was needed to be done? To whom did it extend in the security police? - according to you.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chair, that would I think, apply to anybody that had the necessary experience, the necessary discretion and the position as well as the commitment, the commitment that was needed.

ADV BOSMAN: That is a very flexible sort of criteria. How and who would determine it then?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chair, it develops by customary practice. It's not a question that someone joins the South African Police and immediately starts in the Security Branch and is immediately involved with this type of thing. I can't think of examples where that happened.

ADV BOSMAN: But can you give us examples of people whose names have been mentioned to whom this extended? Let's take Sergeant Walkley for instance, did this sort of general authorization extend to him?

MR BELLINGAN: I think by virtue of his position in Stratcom then he would have. The rank that he had was not so critically important, Mr Chairman, as the fact that he was trusted at that time and the fact that he was capable.

ADV BOSMAN: But if ever it became a dispute as to whether this authorization extended to a particular person, who would have made the decision, who would have said yes, well this general authorization extends to this person in view of?

MR BELLINGAN: He would have been halted by a departmental steps, Mr Chair, or by a Court action or by a transfer, Mr Chairman.

ADV BOSMAN: But is that fair?

MR BELLINGAN: It may not be fair but it's what happened in practice. In fact ...

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR BELLINGAN: ... yes, okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wagener?

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, maybe just for the record I'm not an advocate, I'm merely a lowly attorney.

MR BELLINGAN: I understand, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: On this last line of questioning by Advocate Bosman, I'm still not sure whether I understand you correctly. You were in a specific section, Personnel Development Section, right?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: You did things there like polygraph tests, psychometric analysis, I'm not sure whether it's the right word.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Personality evaluations.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: You provided training to Security Branch members regarding personality behaviour, things like that?

MR BELLINGAN: Amongst other things yes, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: But at the same time there was another section called Stratcom and you were not part of that?

MR BELLINGAN: Not at that stage, Mr Chair. I started the Personnel Development Unit.

MR WAGENER: I'm also told that in this big Intelligence Unit, Unit D, there were other sections for instance called the Europe Desk and the Africa Desk which were also separate sections like your own.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: And that all these sections functioned in compartments?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair. I'm not - there was an overlap obviously.

MR WAGENER: Now I have big problems with the previous answer of yours that while in this section of yours, you still were at liberty to do more or less anything if it would serve the cause of the Special Branch. Where did you get the authority to do that?

MR BELLINGAN: From the training I was on, Mr Chair, from past practice, from the analysis of the need that arose, from my understanding of the situation, from discussions, formal and informal, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: So you were authorised to embark on a mission that would normally fall under the domain of say the Europe Desk or the Africa Desk, you were allowed to do that?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chair, usually they would request something of me. For example if the - okay, let me just say no, let me not give an example.

MR WAGENER: Sorry? I'm waiting for the example.

MR BELLINGAN: For example, if someone came to me and said there are some people from the Europe Desk, from the London Surveillance Unit who needed evaluation, then we would make the necessary arrangements, Mr Chair, and I would do it.

MR WAGENER: So you would react upon a request from that specific section?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair, unless there was something that I did out of a proactive stance. If I had received a report about someone over there, if a handler had said something me, if an agent in an interview had said something then proactive steps may have been appropriate and I would have used my discretion in that regard, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan please, what handlers would tell you, give you sensitive information regarding their own operations, for what purposes would that be? - remembering that you were in the Personnel Development Section providing certain support services to other sections.

MR BELLINGAN: On a national basis. That is the only part that the attorney left out. And I would receive sensitive information on a daily basis, Mr Chair. And these people opened up to me a lot more than they opened up to anybody else.

MR WAGENER: And if they opened up to you, wouldn't you then report it to the correct relevant section to deal with the problem?

MR BELLINGAN: Not always, Mr Chair, no.

MR WAGENER: Your commanding officer at the time was Mr Oosthuizen, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Was he aware of this practice of yours?

MR BELLINGAN: Sorry, what practice?

MR WAGENER: To act on your own initiative pro-actively in terms of some vague general authorization.

MR BELLINGAN: I never would have been in that trusted position unless everybody was aware of that, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: So if Mr Oosthuizen would testify that this evidence of yours is not correct, you realise what I'm referring to, would he then be lying?

MR BELLINGAN: My evidence is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: So Mr Oosthuizen would be lying, because I can tell you now that will be his evidence, that you had no such general authority to act outside the ambits of your section. Then he would be lying? That's what you say, he would be lying?

MR BELLINGAN: I'm not sure I understand it correctly. Is that in a sense that my function was only to do psychometric testing and these types of things, a very strict focus, in which case that is completely incorrect.

MR WAGENER: No, no. My instructions are, Mr Bellingan, that you had no such authority as you've just testified, that you could on your own pro-actively when you received information or Intelligence, that you could react pro-actively on your own outside, totally outside the ambit of your section. You had no such authority.

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chair, the authority that I had is as I've explained it.

MR WAGENER: Just tell me again, where did you get this authority, is it in writing, verbal, when, where, by whom was it given?

MR BELLINGAN: It's contained amongst other things, in the annexures that I've submitted to the Committee, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Can you show it to me?

MR BELLINGAN: It's contained in informal discussion, it's contained in formal discussion, it's contained in precedent, Mr Chairman. This was a war situation. For people to now come along and say yes, but what about standing orders and what about what's stands on paper, that is just too ridiculous, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, I've also read in your application, and I will find the page if necessary, where you said or where you described the highly disciplined military type organisation that the police and specifically the Security Branch was at the time. I can find it if need be, but I can remember it's somewhere in your application. Can you remember that?

MR BELLINGAN: I remember saying that it was based on military structure, the command system, in the sense that orders came down from top ranks down to the lower ranks, Mr Chair. I also remember adding the rider that lower ranks were at times required to act on their own initiative and as such it was permitted.

MR WAGENER: Yes. They were allowed to act on their own initiative within the ambit of what they were doing and ordered to do only. That is what I understand by a disciplined military force. Isn't that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: No, it's not correct, Mr Chairman. That discipline required a commitment to the cause, Mr Chair. To see that in a narrow focus would mean that the person would have been practically not more than a soldier responding to orders. He wouldn't have been highly regarded in the Security Branch, Mr Chair. And he's probably the type of person that isn't in any trouble today, he's probably still sitting behind a desk doing nothing like he did at the time, Mr Chair.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I - I'm sorry to interrupt, may I just be clear on the statement Mr Wagener made, and may I enquire if the statement is made on the basis that his clients will come and testify that or was the statement just made for purposes of cross-examination? - the statement specifically that security policemen were allowed to act on their own initiative only within the ambit of their own sections.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that appeared to me to have been in the course of cross-examination. I think that Mr Wagener has put a portion of Mr Oosthuizen's intended testimony.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps he can clarify that but I understood it simply in the course of the debate of cross-examination.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, but in all fairness I don't want to eventually cross-examine Mr Wagener's clients if we don't make this point clear now. So perhaps we can have some clarity on that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I appreciate that.

BREAK IN RECORDING

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, I will try and make it absolutely clear. Your commanding officer at the time, Mr Oosthuizen, knows nothing about this so-called authority that you say you had in terms of which you were entitled and authorised to act the way you have described here this morning. And he is under subpoena, he's got to come and testify and he will say that.

MR BELLINGAN: I doubt that very strongly, Mr Chair, that he knows nothing about the things to which I've testified in my amnesty application and the things which are annexed thereto and the incidents, the schedules, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: And also that he never gave you this authority as your commanding officer.

MR BELLINGAN: I understood my commanding officer to be a highly motivated, highly committed person dedicated to the cause of the National Party, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what is your response? The pointed proposition that Mr Wagener puts to you is that Mr Oosthuizen never gave you this authority as your commanding officer.

MR BELLINGAN: What authority exactly is that, Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: The authority that you testified to that you are, you had the authority to act pro-actively outside the ambit of the activities of the section to which you were specifically assigned. I'm trying to paraphrase what I understood to have been your testimony.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chair, nobody ever said anything to me whenever we were involved in operations outside of that. In fact on one particular occasion it was in fact quite clear to me that even if there were an instruction it may not apply to everybody. For example in the one particular case Transkei was a sensitive area and despite the fact that people were advised, the police were advised not to go in, I still went in and did a recruitment in the Transkei, and Mr Oosthuizen never had any problem with that at all, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wagener?

MR WAGENER: I haven't got instructions on this last aspect but, and I will try and obtain that, Mr Bellingan, but in this instance that you've mentioned, did Mr Oosthuizen know about it beforehand?

MR BELLINGAN: I can't recall if he knew about it beforehand, Mr Chair. He never complained to me about it.

MR WAGENER: Before stepping off this issue, Mr Bellingan, my instructions are that while you were not at that stage even a member of the Stratcom section, you had no authority, no general authority to embark upon a Stratcom operation on your own with financial implications etc., on your own without telling anyone. You had no such authority.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chair, the operational expenses to which I've referred were not all Stratcom expenses. The project may have been actuated by Stratcom, Mr Chair, that my have been the intention but spending of the money, some of it was done specifically on the Personnel Development Unit. For example, industrial information services, for example the purchase of psychometric material, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, your section, surely it had its own budget to run its own affairs?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Not from - sorry, sorry, from government money, not from outside money, stolen money whatever. Surely you had your own budget as a part of a State department?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chair, it fell under - if I'm not mistaken, the broader project expenses probably came from Operation Detegere.

MR WAGENER: Yes.

MR BELLINGAN: Which actually was the Intelligence Unit.

MR WAGENER: Yes. And where did the Intelligence Unit get its money from?

MR BELLINGAN: From the Secret Fund, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: And that's State money officially budgeted for and authorised for this project?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: So there's no need for any section within this component to by way of private enterprise, obtain money from wherever else in order to fund their activities?

MR BELLINGAN: No, there was a need, Mr Chair. It may have been - it most likely would have been possible to get the money elsewhere. But also in the context of my discussion which I mentioned in the general section, with General Joubert where he had complained about the large sums of money we spent on Stratcom and these projects, of the State's money, I thought that it was the right thing to do. To where there would have been hassles and where it would have necessitated perhaps misrepresenting things on the secret forms to be filled in, I would prefer not to do that, I would much rather use money which served a Stratcom purpose.

MR WAGENER: Okay, Mr Bellingan, your commanding officer will testify that there was no need for you to go about and steal money in order to finance your section, there was enough money budgeted for.

MR BELLINGAN: There was a need in terms of the context of the ideological struggle in which we were involved, Mr Chairman. There was not a specific need in the sense that the operation might fall apart and fail just because we didn't make a purchase of one or other kind, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, can I move on to the issue of the recruitment of your ex-wife as a source for the Security Branch. When did this happen that she was recruited?

MR BELLINGAN: That would have been around '85, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: While you were still in Johannesburg?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: And before you were married?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Who exactly recruited her into the system as a source?

MR BELLINGAN: That was I, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Was she properly registered as a source in terms of your prescribed procedures?

MR BELLINGAN: There were different categories of sources Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Ja.

MR BELLINGAN: She was at that stage in the lowest category of source. She was not a contract source or an agent, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: But she received a monthly income?

MR BELLINGAN: She received money whenever it was motivated for, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: No, no, no, Mr Bellingan, I heard you testifying she received a monthly remuneration.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair, but I had to fill forms in for that, it was not the contract matter which was on an annual basis. That is not how she was employed at that stage. At a later stage she was employed on that basis.

MR WAGENER: When, when? Sorry, when did you have to fill in the forms you say?

MR BELLINGAN: That is prior to the remuneration arriving, Mr Chair. It would be motivated for say a three month period or a six month period or whatever the case may be. The regulations changed all the time.

MR WAGENER: So do you say that before each payment you had to motivate the payment in writing? Is that what happened?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: And then what happened to this written motivation?

MR BELLINGAN: It went to the local, the people who dealt with the finances and they would have disbursed the money or they would have sent it to the National Secret Fund people, Colonel Louis Koekemoer. I'm not exactly sure of the logistics at that stage, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, wouldn't it first go to your direct commanding officer for his comment and recommendations?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair, it would ...(intervention)

MR WAGENER: Who would that have been?

MR BELLINGAN: At that time I think it was also Colonel Oosthuizen. He was then Captain Oosthuizen. Either he or whoever one of the seniors was over there.

MR WAGENER: Well to make it short, Mr Bellingan, Mr Oosthuizen denies that your late wife was ever a source for the Security Branch, according to his knowledge. He knows nothing of this.

MR BELLINGAN: I think his memory has let him down, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Are you sure it was him? If anyone is supposed to know, it's got to be him, no-one else?

MR BELLINGAN: Not necessarily, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: You won't come at a later stage and say it was someone else - Mr Oosthuizen?

MR BELLINGAN: As I've explained before and I don't mind saying it again. One of the senior officers - if I remember correctly there were three signatures that had to be obtained, it would be that applicant's, that would be mine on the form and it would be a more senior officer than myself and then it would be the person on the Secret Fund administration itself, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: No in order to do that, wasn't she supposed to be registered officially as a source?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chair, that is with the case of standing motivations which occurred at a later stage.

MR WAGENER: Well at a later stage I understand you to say she received monthly payments. At that stage then.

MR BELLINGAN: Correct, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: So the official records of the police will show - or maybe I should ask you first, under what name was she registered?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall, Mr Chair. It did happen at times that we never used the, in fact in most instances we never used the people's correct names, for obvious reasons.

MR WAGENER: Please Mr Bellingan, this is not anyone, this is the woman you loved, this is the woman you married later. Under what name was she registered? Stop playing games.

MR BELLINGAN: I'm not playing games, Mr Chairman, and I don't recall under what name she was registered. There were thousands of sources, Mr Chair, of which only a very small percentage were registered under their correct names. She may have been registered under different names over a period of time.

MR WAGENER: Was she referred to in your circles by a codename?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chair, not at that stage that Mr Wagener is talking about.

MR WAGENER: Did you refer to her in your official discussions and documentations by her real name?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't think so, Mr Chair. As I've testified, Janine was not a penetration source.

MR WAGENER: By what name was she referred to in your official circles, Mr Bellingan?

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

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, I want to go to the records and I want to ascertain whether you are talking the truth or not, so give me the name please of this one woman, the name of which you should know and remember.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I'm sorry. May I enquire, do these records exist, because this is a very important revelation, not just for purposes of this hearing but for purposes of various other hearings. And I have up to now been under the impression that these records have all been destroyed.

If these records exist I would love to have regard to them and sight of them, for purposes of this hearing and other hearings.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I suppose that is something that Mr Wagener wants to follow up if your client is in the position to give the requisite information.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, I'm not sure whether they exist and I can't go on a wild goose chase if Mr Bellingan is not prepared to play open cards and give us the details, then we know what we can go and look for. That is why I'm asking these questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that's the answer.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chair, mine was not the only wife or member of the family that was registered. I did it for various people as well and I don't recall any of the names that were used, sufficer to say that it was not the real names.

And I can guarantee you that the name Bellingan never appeared on any of those claim forms. It may be that I initially put claims in under Janine's maiden name. Janine was married for a short period prior to meeting me, Mr Chair. At the moment I can't think of the exact surname but it will come to me in a very short space of time and I don't mind telling it to Mr Wagener if that is important to him. It may be that I used that name, Mr Chair.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I'm very sorry, I don't want to belabour this point but with respect, there hasn't been an indication from Mr Wagener if he knows if such records do exist.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think he says he's not sure whether they do exist but I think what he is saying is that armed with the information which your client, which he was trying to elicit from your client, he will embark on an enquiry. I think he had said it would be a bit of a wild goose chase if there are no parameters to that. So it appears to me as if he's not in a position at this stage to confirm whether they are ...(indistinct) or not.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I then, and I'm sorry that I'm raising this but it is important for other hearings and other matters, that if anything is found that Mr Wagener then undertakes to give us information where the documents are, where they can be obtained and how we can get sight of them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we'll deal with that once there is some further response from Mr Wagener. I assume that he intends embarking on some or other sort of enquiry. But perhaps it's a bit premature at this stage to ...

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I just want to raise it, Mr Chairman, because of the importance thereof. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes, that is noted.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, which of your colleagues were aware of the fact that your late wife, at that stage your future wife, was a registered source?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall, Mr Chair. I would love to have access to some of my previous colleagues, Mr Chair. I'm quite sure that after I've spoken to them I would have been calling them over here to testify on my behalf.

MR WAGENER: Did Mr Erasmus know?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't know, Mr Chair. He was the commanding officer I think at the time of the Witwatersrand.

MR WAGENER: Did he know?

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

MR WAGENER: Did Mr Oosthuizen know?

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

MR WAGENER: Did Mr Taylor know?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Taylor wasn't at the Witwatersrand Security Branch, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Did anyone know?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Who?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't remember, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Who was Janine's co-handler?

MR BELLINGAN: She had no co-handler, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Wasn't that the practice for each and every source as a backup measure, that a source should have a principal handler and a co-handler?

MR BELLINGAN: That is with infiltration sources, Mr Chair. And at a later stage in Pretoria there was, that was people involved with the trade union project that also made use of the administrative services of Janine as well.

MR WAGENER: The payments she allegedly received, from whom did she receive it?

MR BELLINGAN: That would have been myself, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: So did you get the money from somewhere and then paid it over to her?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: From whom did you get it?

MR BELLINGAN: It would have come from the Secret Fund, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: The Secret Fund, Mr Bellingan, is not a person.

MR BELLINGAN: Over a period of time it was different people, Mr Chair. At Witwatersrand Security Branch, I think I've explained it previously to the Committee, the money came in a little pile of cash with a, in an envelope with a receipt stapled to it and one would get that from the person who held the key to the safe at that stage.

There were various people involved at the time. I can't think particularly who the names were. They were in the office I think next to General Erasmus, if my memory serves me correctly. At a later stage at head office. There would be somebody who signed for perhaps all the source money and then took it across to Stratcom or one would go oneself. For example when I was at - when I was on Unit G, directly after being transferred to Pretoria, the Secret Fund people were in close proximity, so one would just go oneself then and collect all of one's source money at the end of the month and make the necessary disbursements, return the receipts.

When we were at Maritime House I can't remember if one person in particular collected it or if we still went on an individual basis. I don't recall, Mr Chair, but that would have been directly then to the Secret Fund, the main office of the Secret Fund.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, you've given us a long explanation of what happens in general. I asked you about the money that Janine received from you as a source, from whom did you collect it?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't remember the various people's names over a period of time, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Give us one.

MR BELLINGAN: The people at the Secret Fund, if I were to mention a name it may not be accurate but usually there was, it was the administrative staff that did that, Mr Chair. The most senior person at Witwatersrand that I can recall collecting money like that from was a Colonel van Wyk, I think it was van Wyk, ja. And at head office there were a couple of ladies I think who worked with Colonel Koekemoer and Captain Dirk van Heerden and Captain Charl du Plessis and Jan Augustyn. There were two ladies, one was also a Rina Bellingan and the other one was Susan - I cannot recall her name.

MR WAGENER: Okay. So ...(intervention)

MR BELLINGAN: Blonde hair, quite ...

MR WAGENER: So did you go on a monthly basis - and we're still now in Johannesburg, please remember, did you go on a monthly basis to this unknown person or it may have been a Mr van Wyk, would you go to him and say please hand me the envelope with the money for my source, Janine Potter? Is that what you would have done or - ja, I would assume her real name or her code name or whatever, would you do that?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: How did it happen?

MR BELLINGAN: The attorney must know that's not the true answer.

MR WAGENER: So what happened, tell us please.

MR BELLINGAN: One would go along there and the person would have recorded against one's name all of the sources by means of a number for which one was responsible, then one would collect the various piles of money and do the necessary, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: And then did you have to sign a receipt for accepting the money on behalf of the sources?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't think so, Mr Chair, I don't think so. I think one only had a return receipt upon the payment.

MR WAGENER: Now who would have signed this receipt you're now referring to? The source, not you?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, the source, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: So you got the envelope and attached to that was a receipt.

MR BELLINGAN: Correct, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: You took it to the source and said here's your money, count it, see if it's correct and sign for it?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair, but I don't think anyone ever counted it, they just assumed it was correct.

MR WAGENER: Right. Who countersigned the receipts of Janine?

MR BELLINGAN: That would be myself, and then if I remember correctly two witnesses were necessary.

MR WAGENER: Yes, and they were supposed to be in one another's presence when all this happened, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: It never happened in practice like that, Mr Chair. - or it seldom happened in practice.

MR WAGENER: In terms of your prescribed procedures, weren't you supposed to hand over the money to the source in the presence of some colleagues of yours who had to co-sign that the money was properly handed over to the source? Wasn't that the prescribed procedure?

MR BELLINGAN: Well it may have been prescribed, it was never said to anybody. But obviously there were two signatures over there, Mr Chair. In many instances one person signed and it went in like that. It was understood that this was an operational environment, highly sensitive and that if conditions necessitated it one signature would do. In other instances someone at the office would just sign. In other instances the handler and co-handler would be there and they could sign.

But obviously it was often difficult for such a signature to take place in public, it was operational, Mr Chair, it was not always a question of here's your money, count it, sign, co-sign, but that was the general idea, yes.

MR WAGENER: So Mr Bellingan, once again we're only left with your word that all this happened.

MR BELLINGAN: As I say, Mr Chair, I would love the opportunity to be able to speak to my ex-colleagues, to have spoken to them prior to filling in my amnesty application and prior to these proceedings. I would have really liked that opportunity.

MR WAGENER: Was there a system, a prescribed system that a production file should be kept and maintained regarding each source?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair. At a - I think at a later stage that was a formal requirement.

MR WAGENER: Was there a file like this kept regarding Janine?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair, at a later stage.

MR WAGENER: Who was in charge of this file?

MR BELLINGAN: That would be myself Mr Chair, and then of course the Trade Union Desk would have kept that in head office.

MR WAGENER: So there was a file kept on Janine reflecting her production as a source and kept at head office?

MR BELLINGAN: That's correct, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: And you provided the - was it a written motivation?

MR BELLINGAN: It would have been a, at head office a typed motivation, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Ja.

MR BELLINGAN: In Johannesburg it would have been a handwritten motivation.

MR WAGENER: And this was done by you, this motivation?

MR BELLINGAN: I think at a later stage there was a more lengthy motivation with a contract, with the insistence that the Official Secrets Act be signed and then that was basically the last of it because Janine refused to sign all these documents in her own name etc. That was around, while I was still at Maritime House, around 1987/'88. I can't remember exactly, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, at that time did any of your colleagues know you had a relationship with this lady?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Now I'm asking you once again, did anyone of them know that she was your registered and paid source?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Please try and remember who would they be.

MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall exactly. There was a - at head office I know that it was a, I think it was a Stanley Minow(?) who had approached Janine at one point in time.

MR WAGENER: What position ...(intervention)

MR BELLINGAN: With the - I think he was a Lieutenant at the time. He was at the Stratcom, the Trade Union Desk at the time, Mr Chair. Prior to that it would have been myself.

MR WAGENER: Regarding this whole issue of the blowing of certain agents, names have been mentioned in your application and you've questioned on that score by Mr Trengove and reference was also made to an affidavit by a certain Mr Evans. Do you still stick to your version in this respect?

MR BELLINGAN: I stick to my testimony before the Commission, Mr Chair. I don't know if it is in any way contradicted by Mr Evans' affidavit. I certainly hope that it isn't.

MR WAGENER: Well Mr Bellingan, I think we should move on. My instructions are that this version of yours that Janine was a source and that she was responsible for the exposure of certain agents is all fabrication.

MR BELLINGAN: That's not the case, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Can I ask you, regarding the whole operation or the Numsa incident, or can I call it an operation or shall we refer to it as an incident? What do you prefer?

MR BELLINGAN: Do I have a choice, Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Just for the purposes of your debate with Mr Wagener, take the choice. It's one of the few that you'll get I suppose.

MR BELLINGAN: Thank you. Operation will do just fine, thank you, Mr Wagener.

MR WAGENER: Tell me first, this man Mr Bouwer, he was a colleague of yours, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: You worked together in the Stratcom, the old Stratcom section at head office, right?

MR BELLINGAN: Not exactly, Mr Chair, he was at head office, I was at Witwatersrand at the time. I worked with him in that capacity.

MR WAGENER: You didn't work together in Pretoria?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Had he already left the police when you came to Pretoria?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair, shortly before I was in Pretoria.

MR WAGENER: Were you friends?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair, I think that's fair to say.

MR WAGENER: Was he a dishonest cop?

MR BELLINGAN: In the sense that Mr Trengove means it or in what sense? I think we need clarity. He was honest - the time when I knew him at the Stratcom desk he was honest to the cause, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Why did he leave the South African Police?

MR BELLINGAN: He went to work at National Intelligence, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Was he discharged from the South African Police after an incident involving the misappropriation of Secret Fund money?

MR BELLINGAN: Not to my knowledge, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Well that will be the evidence of my clients. Can you dispute that?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I can, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: On what basis?

MR BELLINGAN: The basis of the facts, of the knowledge that I have, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, may I ask through you to Mr Chaskalson to obtain the personnel file of Mr Bouwer from the police head office? It should be available.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we note that request. I'm quite sure Mr Chaskalson would in his usual co-operative way provide.

MR WAGENER: Anyway, Mr Bellingan, my instructions are that this Mr Bouwer left the police under a bit of a cloud regarding Secret Fund money. That's my instructions from my client.

MR BELLINGAN: That has changed quite a lot from what Mr Wagener said just now. Just now Mr Wagener said he was discharged from the South African Police as a result.

MR WAGENER: Sorry, I will have to check on that file that Mr Chaskalson is going to bring to us. But whether he took his own discharge in good or whether he was discharged, I'm sorry but he left under a cloud after an incident concerning the misappropriation of Secret Fund money. You're not aware of that?

MR BELLINGAN: I am aware of the circumstances around that, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: What are they according to you?

MR BELLINGAN: There was later an incident involving the State Security Council, Mr Chair, not the Police Secret Fund, in which Mr Bouwer was allegedly involved.

MR WAGENER: Concerning money?

MR BELLINGAN: That's correct, Mr Chairman, that's what I heard. I don't know how true it is but my knowledge is that his work in the South African Police on Stratcom was good. What happened at the State Security Council, I'm not entirely sure.

MR WAGENER: To ease the concerns of Mr du Plessis, Mr Chairman, I will get exact instructions on this and I will endeavour to present evidence on this. If I may leave it at that score please.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we note that, Mr Wagener.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, in March 1989, that was the time when this Numsa operation of yours commenced, you were the head of the Personnel Development Section in the Intelligence Unit at head office, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: You were not part of the Stratcom section any longer, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct, Mr Chairman, Colonel Putter who then I think was still Captain, had taken over from me there.

MR WAGENER: You became aware apparently of an operation, I think we may call this an operation, called WH10 which related to the interception of postal items, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: This was an officially authorised operation from Security Head Office?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: I'm told that was officially done in terms of the provisions of the then "Die Pos Wet" - I'm not sure Mr Chairman, the Postal Act I think, and it was Section 118 of that Act, but it was officially authorised to intercept postal items. And Mr Bellingan, there was also a WH11 in relation to telephonic interceptions which was likewise officially authorised. You became aware of that?

MR BELLINGAN: One had to fill an application form for these things Mr Chairman. I knew about this from my days at - virtually immediately on the Security Branch, after a short while I learnt about those things. It was part of a job of a field operative to fill in some of those forms, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, you mentioned in your application that Mr Erasmus at some stage approached you and requested you to do certain things which led to this whole Numsa operation of yours, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chair.

MR WAGENER: What exactly did Mr Erasmus tell you?

MR BELLINGAN: He asked me to, basically to make a plan with the cheques, Mr Chairman. They were gathering, going stale.

MR WAGENER: What did you understand you should do?

MR BELLINGAN: To cash as many of them as possible, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Without telling anyone?

MR BELLINGAN: No, ...(intervention)

MR WAGENER: In other words, did you ...(intervention)

MR BELLINGAN: Obviously I would have to liaise with Stratcom, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Did you understand this as an instruction from Mr Erasmus to embark upon your own Stratcom operation or operation?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman, it was not an instruction.

MR WAGENER: What was it then?

MR BELLINGAN: It was a request, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Let's not play with words, Mr Bellingan. You were part of what you described as a military environment, you had a junior rank, this is your commanding officer. We've all been - most of us have been in the Defence Force at times, we know what a request is by a senior officer, it's an instruction. Isn't that so?

MR BELLINGAN: I follow that argument, Mr Chairman, but in the run-up to it there was an error made by the attorney and that is that I never said that the Security Branch was a militaristic environment. I never said that at all. In fact quite the opposite. The standing orders of the police didn't really apply to the Security Branch, we didn't keep pocket books etc, etc, etc.

MR WAGENER: Ja, Mr Bellingan, that's a very, very small issue, but I think we should try and move on.

You call it a request and I refer to it as an instruction, so I'm happy to settle for your request then. He requested you to steal the money of Numsa, did he say that or did he merely refer to cheques in general?

MR BELLINGAN: He referred to the cheques being received by the Stratcom Desk, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: This whole clever idea of calling Numsa now N Umsa, whose was that?

MR BELLINGAN: That was my idea, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Did you go back to Mr Erasmus and tell him that you have considered the request and you had this bright idea of calling Numsa N Umsa and therefore you are going to divert their cheques in this way that you eventually did? Did you go back to Mr Erasmus and convey this to him?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman, what happened is I think Major Botha had said something to General Erasmus about it and he just enquired from me with a smile on his face, how did you do it? And I explained it to him, very simple, you put a fullstop there and I explained to him about the Nicholas Umsa thing and he was satisfied with that.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, once again to try and curtail matters, Mr Erasmus denies that, that he ever requested you or instructed, whatever you want to call it, to go through the cheques that were intercepted and take some of them, go and open an account and bank them. He denies that.

MR BELLINGAN: That is not true, Mr Chairman, and - that's it, it's not true.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Bellingan, can you just clarify for me -if you will allow it, Mr Wagener, I don't know whether I missed a point somewhere but obviously some of these cheques were not made out to Numsa but to National Union of Mine Workers, what did you do with those cheques?

MR BELLINGAN: I didn't do anything with them, Mr Chairman, possibly I put them through the shredder or something like that. I mean we didn't attempt, those ones that were no good for the Nicholas Umsa account, we shredded them or left them to go stale or whatever.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you inform anybody about the destruction of these other cheques then, and who did you inform about it?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't understand, Mr Chairman, sorry?

ADV BOSMAN: You said that you probably put some of these cheques that were made out to National Union of Mine Workers through the shredder, did you inform anybody that these cheques had been - I mean that was a destructive act. You made sure that Numsa did not receive the monies, did you inform anyone about this?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman, it also wouldn't have been I who put it through the shredder, it would have been someone on the staff. But I understand the question to be did I tell anyone about the fact that the cheques either then went stale or were shredded or destroyed in one way or the other, and the answer is no, I did not.

ADV BOSMAN: But were they shredded on your instructions? Who instructed whoever on the staff to shred them?

MR BELLINGAN: That would have been myself or someone at the Stratcom Unit then, who would have taken care of that.

ADV BOSMAN: But would this not have been very important information? I mean we have now made sure that a cheque of say R50 000 was not paid out to Numsa or into the Numsa account, I mean would it not be very relevant and important information that you should have passed on?

MR BELLINGAN: No, the answer to that, Mr Chairman, is that the people would just have made out another cheque as in cheque lost in the post or whatever, so then the debt had not been settled as such. Whereas had it been paid through the account then the debt was discharged as such, then the company or whoever would not have had anymore obligation to Numsa. Whereas if it just went stale within three months or six months, either by being shredded or whatever, burnt or whatever or left on Colonel Vic's desk or something then ...(intervention)

ADV BOSMAN: I follow that, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until 1.30.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: I remind you that you are still under oath.

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wagener?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: (cont)

Prior to the adjournment, Mr Bellingan, questions were directed to you by Advocate Bosman regarding the shredding of the cheques. Now I think that is where we were, okay.

What I'm interested in is exactly how did it come about that you - and remember, Mr Bellingan, at that stage you're the Personnel Development Officer, how did it come about that you ended up going through the intercepted mail and more specifically the intercepted cheques and selecting from that the Numsa cheques to take away?

MR BELLINGAN: Very little of that, of the question is correct, so I would have to correct it first. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Firstly, I was the senior person at the Personnel Development Unit which I started. I was not a Personnel Development Officer which in personnel language means training. Secondly, there's been absolutely no evidence whatsoever that I went through the post as it were. In fact the evidence is that Colonel Horak's section did that, they passed that documentation to Mr MacPherson. And that is also what my evidence is, Mr Chairman. And then Stratcom would give me those cheques, not General Erasmus, the people at Stratcom would give those cheques to me, Mr Chairman.

It was not some general pile of post, these were cheques that were given to me. I didn't sort through the post at all, Mr Chairman, except the cheques that I was given, I sorted through those.

MR WAGENER: Sorry for the wrong assessment of your position at the time, that was not intentional. But anyway you did receive a bundle of cheques and from those you selected the Numsa ones because you had this grand scheme of Nicholas Umsa, that's correct at least?

MR BELLINGAN: From the initial pile of cheques that I got, Mr Chairman, after I'd been through them the idea came to me, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: And if I heard you correctly prior to the adjournment, you personally may have been responsible for the shredding of certain cheques that you did take for banking, was that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Not I personally, Mr Chairman, but it could have happened that I may have caused it to be shredded.

MR WAGENER: The cheques you didn't take, did you pass that on to someone?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall exactly, Mr Chairman. If there was such a thing, Mr Chairman, it would have been on Stratcom staff, perhaps the person who gave them to me in the first place, Major Botha or one of the people on Stratcom staff.

MR WAGENER: So to me it seems probable that someone from Stratcom then showed you the bundle of cheques, you took some, you gave it back and they took it for whatever purposes, shredding or whatever but the shredding and the further dealing with the cheques seems to be part of their function, do I understand that correctly?

MR BELLINGAN: In that sense yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV GCABASHE: Could I just interrupt, Mr Wagener.

The first bundle of cheques you were given was a general bundle, you selected Numsa cheques from the general bundle?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV GCABASHE: The second time you went back, did the same process take place or did they already know they should only give you the Numsa cheques?

MR BELLINGAN: It was still the same - there were still other general cheques in there, Mr Chairman. Every single time when I got cheques there was still other cheques inside the pile that I got. So the idea was that if there was something at any point in time that I could do, but I think towards the end it was only Numsa cheques.

But certainly at least on one more occasion I did receive more general cheques. So there was no limit to me to say well, okay from now on that was a good idea, stick with it. I think at any point in time if I had taken the trouble to do something else that would have been acceptable too.

ADV GCABASHE: And your perception was that General Erasmus had wanted you to make a plan with all the cheques, not necessarily the Numsa cheques?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, not necessarily. He didn't say anything about Numsa to me per se, he just said the cheques at Stratcom.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wagener?

MR WAGENER: In the opening of the account at Nedbank, what exactly was Mr Bouwer's role?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Bouwer ...(intervention)

MR WAGENER: Sorry, if any.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Bouwer had to, or was asked to see what he could do to get rid of the photograph of myself which was taken from the passport, Mr Chairman, which he did. He went and collected that and he gave it back to me.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, while we're on Mr Bouwer, maybe I should put something, the record straight here regarding his position and his leaving the South African Police. I again took instructions during the adjournment and that seems to be that you are correct, Mr Bouwer did duty at the State Security Council, the Secretariat of the State Security Council, as a policeman. He did duty there. And the incident involving money took place there, you're correct. Immediately thereafter he left the South African Police although what I referred to as under a cloud. That's what I'm told. So I think to a large extent you were correct and I was wrong.

MR BELLINGAN: He further did go to National Intelligence after that, Mr Chairman, but the attorney has it right now, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, why was it necessary for you to carry the Numsa documentation with you in your briefcase, even apparently to your home at night?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I always used my home as a second office. I often had to meet people who came to my house. I also did work in, for example in the house in Buccleuch I had built a study. In the extension I did at Gallo Manor I built a study for myself which was for my and my use only, so I utilised that. And I did take sensitive documentation home.

MR WAGENER: Was this with the knowledge and consent of your seniors?

MR BELLINGAN: It was with the knowledge, Mr Chairman, and then therefore with the tacit consent.

MR WAGENER: Why was it necessary to take the Numsa documents home at night?

MR BELLINGAN: Numsa documents were often in my briefcase, Mr Chairman, or the passport may have been in my jacket at a certain stage. I don't recall, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, I put this to you; this was a totally unauthorised operation by yourself and that's the only reason why you were afraid to leave the documentation in your office where all official documentation should be in the first place, and that is why you had to carry it around with you, because your colleagues and your seniors may come across it if you left it in your office.

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman, I didn't say that I didn't leave it in my office, I said at times I carried some of it to my house. More of it would have been left in my office at most of the time, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, I think I've said it but I'll say it again, Mr Erasmus denies that he requested or instructed you to embark upon this operation, do you have comment?

MR BELLINGAN: The position regarding my testimony apropos General Erasmus is just as I've given it, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Mr Erasmus further denies that at the time he had knowledge of this operation of yours, that is in the months March to July I think when the account was closed, he had any knowledge of this operation and what you were doing in this regard.

MR BELLINGAN: That is not correct, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Mr Erasmus will also deny that there was at any stage any conversations between him and yourself regarding this Numsa account and that Janine had obtained knowledge about it and that you were to close the account. He will deny all of that.

MR BELLINGAN: That is not correct, Mr Chairman, that he should deny it, he had knowledge of it. It's disappointing to me but it doesn't surprise me.

MR WAGENER: What doesn't surprise you?

MR BELLINGAN: That he denies it, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Did you expect him to back you up in this fabricated story?

MR BELLINGAN: It's not a fabricated story, Mr Chairman. In fact during the trial I went to his house, he wasn't there, I spoke to his daughter. I was in a tight corner regarding this matter, Mr Chairman, and I wanted to speak to him. My advocate had been urging me and urging me and urging me because of the problems that we were having, and he wasn't there. I spoke to his daughter and he was in Cape Town watching a rugby match. After that when I was found guilty, I phoned him and spoke to him and I don't think he'll deny the conversation, and he said to me that they'll tear him apart in the witness stand even if he came and gave a character reference for me prior to sentencing. I was very upset at having been found guilty.

Thereafter my wife had a conversation with him, a very similar conversation at which time he told her that Advocate Meiring would simply pull him apart. Advocate Meiring apparently already had some knowledge about conversations between Janine and General Erasmus. So for him to deny it - as I say, it's disappointing but I guess in view of the sensitivity of the matter it doesn't surprise me, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: So what you're saying, Mr Bellingan, is that Mr Erasmus was prepared to testify on your behalf at the trial, is that what you're saying?

MR BELLINGAN: He was prepared to testify in fact, Mr Chairman, but he said that they would pull him apart and it would end up counting against me in the long run. This in terms of, particularly regarding the sentencing aspect, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, just one point, one aspect on this Numsa issue. Just remind me, when was that tender on the trout farm, was it more or less the same time as the Numsa operation?

MR BELLINGAN: The two things have got nothing to do with each other, Mr Chairman, there was no cash required for the tender for the trout farm, it was a tender. The mode of payment can be checked with the TPA. The person who eventually was successful with a higher tender than us was, it was the agreed mode of payment that it be paid interest free for the first 10 years to the Natal Provincial Administration. There was no money required. The only outlay was the registering of the CC because I didn't want any disputes with my family. The exact dates can be confirmed in the documentation. I still have the original I think, or copies of all the instructions from the Natal Provincial Administration etc, etc, etc. It's quite easy for me to check it up. It was a hatchery in Underberg.

MR WAGENER: So did the Provincial Administration sell a property without expecting payment of the capital amount for the first 10 years or something, is that what you're saying?

MR BELLINGAN: That's correct, Mr Chairman. If need be I'll try and get hold of the documentation and present it here.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, I want to move on to 1991, the time of the death of your wife. At that moment in time were you still the senior official in that same section that we referred to a short while ago?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: But is it not correct that this section has grown considerably since its inception in 1989 till 1991?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: At that stage it involved a number of individuals serving under your command?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: What were they doing, the same as you by way of task description?

MR BELLINGAN: Various tasks, Mr Chairman, from the administrative, there was a secretary there, to purely marking psychometric tests, to some of them administering them to sources, agents.

There were various tasks, Mr Chairman. Some of the staff were appointed in a covert capacity, they were not fulltime members of the police, they were contract workers. Others were sources appointed on a contract basis and yet others were consultants.

MR WAGENER: And you and the people in your section were involved for, I think the word is psychometric tests?

MR BELLINGAN: Inter alia yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Yes. They were involved I'm told, in the drafting of personal evaluations. Maybe you can help me here as psychologist apparently yourself.

MR BELLINGAN: There were evaluations, Mr Chairman, that was the, that's the essence of the matter.

MR WAGENER: And apparently you yourself travelled all over the country where you lectured extensively to members of the Security Branch, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: My functions were on a national basis yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: You lectured on what topic or topics?

MR BELLINGAN: Whichever I was called upon to lecture, Mr Chairman. A lot of the lectures, not on a countrywide basis as the attorney puts it, but a lot of the lectures are annexed to one or other of these bundles over here that I gave. That is from 1989 on some of the Stratcom courses, on some of the management courses.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, I'm told that another section which I did not mention earlier, apart from the Europe Desk and the Africa Desk, there was also a section called counter-espionage, do you remember that?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Who was the commanding officer?

MR BELLINGAN: That was Gert Otto.

MR WAGENER: What was the relationship between your section and his section, on a working basis?

MR BELLINGAN: We did liaise, Mr Chairman. Amongst other things I evaluated Major Otto. We also talked about returning agents, we talked about counter-espionage problems, members of his unit and myself.

MR WAGENER: How do you define the terms or how do you explain the term "counter-espionage" to us here who don't know what terms like that mean?

MR BELLINGAN: It involves investigations into illegal Intelligence activities, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Of your own people?

MR BELLINGAN: Amongst other things yes, Mr Chairman. It would also be the so-called enemy.

MR WAGENER: Isn't the term "counter-espionage", doesn't that mean you're sort of the watchdog of your own entity as opposed to espionage in general?

MR BELLINGAN: No, espionage is the illegal gathering of information. So in other words, the ANC would be involved with espionage, we would be involved with counter-espionage but we also had to look at our own people, our own agents, our own sources, our own handlers, Mr Chairman. That was included under counter-espionage because out of the nature of our activities, if there were any leaks they would automatically be of an illegal type, in contravention of the Protection of Information Act.

MR WAGENER: Were you authorised to embark upon any counter-espionage operations on your own without any specific authority?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Where did you get this authority you're now referring to?

MR BELLINGAN: That is a very general authority I think of every member of the South African Police - the counter-espionage thing that is.

MR WAGENER: Were you entitled to embark upon counter-espionage acts or operations or mission without liaising with the counter-espionage section?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: And you say you had the official authority to do so?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: But this authority cannot be attributed to any specific individual but is only of a general nature?

MR BELLINGAN: No, it can be attributed specifically to me at that time, Mr Chairman, by virtue of my work on the Personnel Development Unit.

MR WAGENER: Sorry, ...(intervention)

MR BELLINGAN: Aside from the fact that I was a policeman.

MR WAGENER: Sorry, maybe you misunderstood me, what I actually was trying to say is that this authority that you say you had at the time, you didn't get it from a specific senior commander granting you this authority but you merely obtained this authority via some general instructions or whatever you want to call it, is that what you're saying?

MR BELLINGAN: It was part of my duties, Mr Chairman, specifically. My senior officers know that very well. They requested me many times to undertake investigations of that nature.

MR WAGENER: Who requested you to do it?

MR BELLINGAN: Amongst others, Colonel Oosthuizen.

MR WAGENER: What did he request you to do?

MR BELLINGAN: Perhaps if I could refer to the annexures of my amnesty application, it might make it a bit easier, Mr Chairman. I'll just explain it, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Remember Mr Bellingan, - sorry for interrupting, but remember the question when you're answering please. Remember the question please.

MR BELLINGAN: I was requested to in specific look at members of the Security Branch, Mr Chairman. I was requested to look at agents, evaluate agents, specific agents, by Colonel Oosthuizen and others.

MR WAGENER: But sorry ...(intervention)

MR BELLINGAN: I was requested to embark on general type of investigations such as the one I mentioned at the surveillance unit, Mr Chairman, where there had been a leak. I was sent for example to Johannesburg where I was put in touch with someone I know very well, who took me for coffee and explained the problem with his unit. That was Colonel van Moelendorf. That was initiated by Colonel Oosthuizen too.

MR WAGENER: But Mr Bellingan, what you ...(intervention)

MR BELLINGAN: Or someone on the staff there, but he had knowledge of it.

MR WAGENER: What you've now told us, what has that got to do with counter-espionage? Sorry, I don't understand you. To go and evaluate an agent, is that a counter-espionage operation?

MR BELLINGAN: I was vague. I mean specifically as to whether he could be trusted. He's been overseas, say for 10 years and he comes back, is he now a double-agent or not? So I would have to provide my opinion in that regard, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: So you were requested to meet with the person and then report on certain aspects of his personality, is that what happened?

MR BELLINGAN: It's more than just personality, Mr Chairman. Although we did try and develop instruments and utilise instruments in using psychometric testing to help us to reach an opinion about that, but that was only one aspect of it, Mr Chairman.

There's not really a standard instrument available for checking up to see via one's personality, whether on is a double-agent.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, I'm aiming towards this so-called hit-list that is referred to in your application and which seems to be, to me at least, the single most important reason this list and the pending exposure therefore that led to the death of your previous wife. I'm aiming towards that list now, if you're with me. Now I may start off by saying I also, like especially Mr Trengove, I have huge problems with your explanations regarding the existence of this list and what it contained.

We may spend another hour or two dealing with this list but I've decided I'll refrain from that and I'll merely ask you a few questions. How did you know that this list was to be found under the seat of your wife's car? Who told you that?

MR BELLINGAN: I looked there, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, ...(intervention)

MR BELLINGAN: I looked everywhere.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, ...(intervention)

MR BELLINGAN: Amongst Janine's things.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, this is now late at night and you've murdered your wife minutes ago, surely you are not now going to spend hours and hours searching everywhere. My question to you is, how did you know to go to the car and look under the seat, attached to the seat apparently, for this list? How did you know to go and look there?

MR BELLINGAN: As I say, Mr Chairman, I looked everywhere amongst Janine's things and the last place I went to was the garage, when I looked in her car.

MR WAGENER: Did you look in the kitchen?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I did, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Did you look in the car's boot?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I did, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: How long did this search of yours last?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall exactly, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Hours?

MR BELLINGAN: Basically until I found that envelope, Mr Chairman. It did not last hours.

MR WAGENER: Minutes?

MR BELLINGAN: No, it was longer than that, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: How long?

MR BELLINGAN: I can't remember how long, Mr Chairman, exactly.

MR WAGENER: Try and give us an estimation please.

MR BELLINGAN: Less than an hour, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, you spoke to your wife earlier that day from Natal, I think you said in the morning, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: That's the Friday, the 20th?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: You knew she had the list?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: In fact you knew she had the list prior to your leaving to Natal?

MR BELLINGAN: I strongly suspected that, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: No, no, no, you knew about the list or you didn't.

MR BELLINGAN: I could not find my list, Mr Chairman, I suspected Janine had it.

MR WAGENER: Did you look for the list at that stage, before you left for Natal?

MR BELLINGAN: I did try and look for things, for that as well, Mr Chairman, but ...(intervention)

MR WAGENER: Why didn't you find it?

MR BELLINGAN: ... I couldn't find anything.

MR WAGENER: Why didn't you find it?

MR BELLINGAN: I didn't find it, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Why not? If you could find it in less than an hour after the murder, surely at an earlier stage when everything is more relaxed and you obviously had more time at your disposal, why couldn't you find it then?

MR BELLINGAN: Perhaps it was not available, Mr Chairman, but also for the reasons that I've explained, that is was not easy to search around the house for me.

MR WAGENER: Why not?

MR BELLINGAN: The domestic servant seemed to be suspicious of me, Janine seemed to be watching me all the time, Mr Chairman. If I went to the garage, Janine would be there, Mr Chairman. I can also just point out that the, if one has a look at the video one will also see that I didn't close the garage door that night. The garage door was still standing open the next day when the police arrived.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, that Friday morning when you spoke to your wife, you have testified that at that stage you were quite sure she had the list, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: And you were quite sure that she had not yet exposed it?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: And you were quite sure that she was going to expose it?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: And that she was going to expose it by apparently mailing it to someone, as was evident from her taped telephone conversation?

MR BELLINGAN: That is the gist of, of my recollection of what I heard on the tape recording, Mr Chairman.

MR BELLINGAN: Now this strikes me as somewhat strange, why would she tell someone on the telephone; I've got this massive bombshell of a document here, I'm going to keep it with me for another week and then I'm going to mail it to you? To me that is a very, very strange way of going about it. To me I would imagine she would tell that person on the phone; listen I've got this document, come over now or I'll see you in an hour's time and I'll give it to you. Why say I'm going to keep it here with me and I'm only going to mail it to you in a week's time? Isn't that very strange?

MR BELLINGAN: At the time when I was in Natal, Mr Chairman, I was convinced that Janine was going to be making the sensitive disclosures. At the time when I heard the phone call, Mr Chairman, I was not, I was in doubt as to whether she would in fact do it or not. I had not satisfied myself at the time that she would. I was under the impression that there would still be time, there still would be opportunity to do something about it, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: But you agree that it's a strange way of going about it, saying I've got this document and I'm going to keep it for another week and only then will I mail it to you?

MR BELLINGAN: Janine must have had her reasons, Mr Chairman. Amongst them, maybe that she still was unsure, she was playing for time. Perhaps also she did not want to be identified by the person that she was speaking to at that point.

MR WAGENER: And also, Mr Bellingan, as far as I can remember she was aware that the phone was bugged at the time or taped at the time by you?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman, she wasn't aware that the phone was taped by me. That was on a prior occasion, that we had argued about that. That she had become aware of it and that I had convinced her that it was in fact at that stage for the maid that I was mostly concerned with. And that in fact I desisted with that when we moved in.

MR WAGENER: Okay, but at least you knew that she told this person she was going to mail the list in a week's time or during the next weekend, that you knew?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Now in this telephone conversation of the Friday morning you also told your wife you were coming home that night?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: So you knew she had the list, you knew she was going to expose the list, you knew she hadn't done so yet, and she knew you were coming home that night, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: I mean you gave her what, 12 hours or what notice of your coming home?

MR BELLINGAN: In fact, Mr Chairman, that may be the case but the point is that up until then she thought that I would be going for the braai the next day. So...

MR WAGENER: No, Mr Bellingan, you told her you were coming home and in fact she believed you because she put the key out and she took the chain out of the front door I heard you to say.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: So she believed you. You were coming home that night, you gave her notice, you gave her 12 hours notice or whatever, 10 - I don't know, you gave her ample notice that you were coming home, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Now surely, Mr Bellingan, under those circumstances she would have run off immediately or mailed that list immediately, immediately after the phone call, before you reached home that night?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, ...(intervention)

MR WAGENER: I put it to you that's what any normal person in her position with those intentions of hers would have done.

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman. Janine and I on a personal level had a very good relationship at that time. It may well be that she wanted my affirmation about what she had in mind at that point in time. Janine changed her mind on a daily basis, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, you're jumping around now. We've just ascertained that you were certain that she was about to expose this list although she hadn't done so yet. You've said that, you've confirmed that now a number of times. That's when you spoke to her on the phone the Friday morning.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: That's why I've put the next proposition to you, that anyone in her position, knowing that you would be home that night, she wouldn't wait until the next morning to mail this list. She's got the whole day now without you on the premises to go and mail this list. That you were so sure that she was going to do anyway.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, it does not just go about the list, it's about the information that Janine had. And I gained the impression that Janine was going to make disclosures but that I would most likely still be able to prevent the disclosing of documentation and her knowledge attached to it.

MR WAGENER: And Mr Bellingan, my next statement to you is that had she mailed the list that Friday, it would not have been on the premises when you arrived on that night, that you would have been too late, and to murder her then would be totally senseless.

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman, I knew very well what that particular list looked like and I knew that it was not just the list itself but that the knowledge of the list coming from, for example, a wife of a Security Branch policeman, the home of a Security Branch policeman, coming from myself, that would be of some value. Just the list per se would not on its own have been of any massive disclosure, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: And therefore, Mr Bellingan, I put it to you that this list never ever existed at all.

MR BELLINGAN: No, it did exist, Mr Chairman, together with the other documentation too.

MR WAGENER: I had a look at the list or the other list then, if I may call it that, as it appears in your application, I think from round about page 89 and 90 in bundle 1. Those items listed there, I heard you to say those were the kind of items in the hit-list, if I may refer to the second list as the hit-list, correct?

In other words, the list that you found in your wife's car contained similar items as in page 89 onwards of the application?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Now these items listed on page - I think it's 89, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's right, 89 to 91.

MR WAGENER: Weren't all these items listed there already public knowledge at the end of November 1997, when this application of yours was drafted?

MR BELLINGAN: ...(inaudible)

MR WAGENER: At that stage we'd had many revelations ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I think his answer did not record, could we just place on record that his answer was - "no".

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you're right, that was his answer. Mr Wagener?

MR WAGENER: At that stage there were already many reports in the media regarding amnesty applications filed a year previously and certain amnesty hearings that's been in progress already, do you agree?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: At that stage we'd been through the criminal trial of Mr Eugene de Kock where he from in Court gave extensive evidence regarding incidents like these.

MR BELLINGAN: I think that may be true, Mr Chairman, I'm not sure.

MR WAGENER: In fact, Mr Bellingan, your present legal advisors are involved in a number of amnesty applications dealing with a number of these incidents listed here. Did they have knowledge of this?

MR BELLINGAN: I now one of my colleagues, Jacques Hechter is represented by Mr du Plessis and they would have knowledge of many of these, Mr Chairman, - that is Jacques Hechter and some of the amnesty applicants.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just come in here? In respect of this list, perhaps my learned friend should be a bit more particular in respect of this because in November 1997, - I've paged through this now, it looks like quite a number of these incidents have not been made public by way of any Truth Commission hearing at all. I think specifically, and I'm not 100% sure, of the killing of Steve Biko, and then specifically Ruth First, the London Bomb and the incident of Jeanette Schoon, and it is important to take into account in respect of this, Mr Chairman, and I just want to place that on record, is that Mr Bellingan was in jail, with respect. Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I think that's fairly accurate. Mr Wagener?

MR WAGENER: Well what I can add, Mr Chairman, reference was made to the Ruth First and Jeanette Schoon incidents. Now Mr Craig Williamson has made public statements on these years ago, years previous, before 1997, it was common knowledge, Mr Chairman. That is all I'm trying to say.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no I think proceed, Mr Wagener.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, I've heard you time and again testifying about the good relationship at the time between you and Janine, that is now September 1991. That there was a very good relationship between the two of you, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Would you describe it as a happy marriage?

MR BELLINGAN: I would describe our relationship as good, I would describe it as having many ups and downs too, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Were you at the time involved in any extramarital relationship or an affair?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Where were you on the weekend 7/8/9 September 1991?

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

MR WAGENER: If I put it to you that you were at the police facility at Port Edward, would you agree?

MR BELLINGAN: 1991?

MR WAGENER: Ja, that's a fortnight before the murder of your wife.

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman, that's not correct.

MR WAGENER: Were you not there?

MR BELLINGAN: Not at that stage, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Where were you that weekend then if you were not there?

MR BELLINGAN: This is a ridiculous question, Mr Chairman, I said I don't remember and I wasn't there. I don't remember where I was but I most definitely was not there.

MR WAGENER: That was the weekend when we heard or we saw evidence that your late wife took your one kid to the doctor. I think the papers show it was the 8th of September. That must have been the Sunday, more-or-less 14 days before the murder. Where were you on that day when your wife took the kid to the doctor?

MR BELLINGAN: I've got no idea, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: If my clients were to give evidence that you were at this police facility at Port Edward on the weekend 14 days prior to the murder, would they be lying?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, are Mr Wagener's clients going to give that evidence, is that being put?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that's the very next thing that will happen.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, this is very painful for me as well, but maybe I should be blunt. My clients will testify that at the time of the murder of your wife you had an affair with another woman.

MR BELLINGAN: I'm sure they may try and testify something like that, Mr Chairman. It's not true, it would be a lie. I had no affairs whatsoever, and I was not there for any weekend with any other woman.

MR WAGENER: In fact they will testify that you were with this woman at this resort or facility at Port Edward on the weekend that I'm referring to.

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

MR WAGENER: And I'll try and make things easier, it was the woman that you are married to at present.

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman, I was there with her a long time after the death of Janine.

MR WAGENER: And they will testify that it was not that big a secret amongst your colleagues, this affair.

MR BELLINGAN: It certainly wasn't a secret that I was going to the holiday resort a long time after the death of my wife, with Renata. It was not a secret at all. In fact if I'm not mistaken my secretary made the booking. It was no secret, my parents were there, Mr Chairman. It most certainly wasn't what Mr Wagener is putting to me, that this was some time before Janine's death.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, I'm going to argue that you had no political motive in terms of the, if I may refer to it as the TRC Act in short, to murder your wife.

MR BELLINGAN: That is not my perception now and it was not my perception then, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: You gave evidence that the killing of your wife was an act, I think your words were directed at or aimed at, I'm not sure but words to that effect, at the liberation movements and their struggle, do you remember that?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Can you explain to me how do you get to that deduction or result? In what sense in other words?

MR BELLINGAN: Janine's actions put her in a category of the liberation movement, Mr Chairman, as well as I say, as a risk to the exposure of information compromising to the National Party.

MR WAGENER: Do you say that at the time of her death she was a supporter of a liberation movement?

MR BELLINGAN: I say that her actions put her in that category and that was my perception, Mr Chairman. I have no doubt that it would be the opposition that would be exploiting that information, not the National Party or anyone on the right of the National Party, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: And what liberation movement would that be?

MR BELLINGAN: Any of the organisations on the, of the liberation movements, Mr Chairman, in particular the African National Congress.

MR WAGENER: Was there in September 1991, a political struggle waged by the ANC against the government?

MR BELLINGAN: On a covert basis, yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Is that when you refer to Operation Vula?

MR BELLINGAN: The circumstances surrounding it and the continuation thereafter, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, I assume that your legal advisors have discussed with you the requirements to obtain amnesty for you in terms of Act 34 of 1995, did they?

MR BELLINGAN: I suppose so, Mr Chairman, I can't recall now.

MR WAGENER: So we need not embark here on a long explanation and argument on what the Act prescribes?

MR BELLINGAN: Not here, Mr Chairman, but I wouldn't mind at some stage if Mr Wagener wanted to discuss it with me ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, your lawyers will debate that fully here.

MR WAGENER: No, Mr Chairman, I will try and cut it short by just saying that I will argue that the killing of your wife falls outside the ambit of this Act. But it is a matter of legal argument, Mr Chairman.

Mr Bellingan, I've basically only got one further aspect to cover and that is what happened subsequent to the death of your wife. Are you sure that on the night of the murder you used your own car from the airport?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Could you see through the windscreen?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, of course, Mr Chairman, it wasn't my own car, it was the Secret Fund car, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Did you see the affidavit by Mr Els which he made? It is in your bundle 3.1, page 49. It is from page - sorry, Mr Chairman, I think the same affidavit is in the same bundle twice. It's on page 54 and - it starts on page 49, sorry, and page 71. I think it's the same affidavit that's been duplicated. So we can ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you're right. Perhaps take the 49 that you started off with.

MR WAGENER: So the affidavit is from page 49 going to page 56, okay.

MR BELLINGAN: I'm familiar with it, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Now this is the Mr Els that drove your car from the airport in Johannesburg on the Saturday night when you came back from Natal?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: And this is the same Mr Els that says that he paid the parking ticket to get out of the parking area, and we've see the documentation. He paid three or four days parking, do you remember that?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Now he says there on page 53, at the end of paragraph 20, when he got to the vehicle the car was dirty, covered in dust. Do you see that?

MR BELLINGAN: I'm familiar with that, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: And on the next page right at the bottom in paragraph 25, he says that he even had to clean the windscreen because of the dust, before he could take the car out. Do you see that?

MR BELLINGAN: It may be, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: That's why I asked you whether you were able to see when you took the car in the middle of the night.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: And you could see?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Why do you think you were taken to this safe-house facility at Midrand first?

MR BELLINGAN: To give me an opportunity to get my act together prior to the investigating officer confronting me, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Was there a problem regarding your kids at that stage and where they should be?

MR BELLINGAN: I understood that the children were not at the house and I had made a request that they be brought to the house, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: If I refer you to that same bundle 3.1, page 13. That is a letter from myself to the Committee in response to certain questions put. And if you turn to the next page, page 14 right at the bottom there is a paragraph 3.4, where I dealt, on instructions of Mr Oosthuizen, to the purpose of this meeting in Midrand according to him.

Will you please read it by yourself, you needn't read it into the record because I want to ask you whether you accept that or put it in dispute or want to comment on that - that paragraph 3.4.

MR BELLINGAN: I'm not sure what counselling was necessary, Mr Chairman, for my children to be taken back to my house.

MR WAGENER: I'm not sure - what do you mean by counselling...?

MR BELLINGAN: There's a sentence here that says

"The arrangement was further that the investigating officer would bring the children to this facility during a process of counselling they could be handed to Bellingan."

I don't know what that means but what Brigadier Oosthuizen says over here, that the children were in fact brought there, that is the case, Mr Chairman, they were in fact brought to the safe-house at a certain time, that's true.

MR WAGENER: In other words, Mr Bellingan, according to Mr Oosthuizen he was of the opinion that you and your children would require competent counselling first at your get-together and before you and the children go back to the house where your wife and their mother was murdered the previous night. That is what this paragraph is trying to say. Do you have any problem with that?

MR BELLINGAN: I can't dispute that Brigadier Oosthuizen may have had some type of opinion like that, Mr Chairman. Obviously I don't know what exactly he was thinking.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, we've heard your testimony over again that you told nobody and specifically no-one of your colleagues that you murdered your wife, but that they all knew you did.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: How should they have known that if you don't tell them.

MR BELLINGAN: It was evident to me that they did know, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: You were a suspect right from the first

day, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Your in-law's, they suspected you?

MR BELLINGAN: I understood so, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: The investigating officer regarded you as a prime suspect?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: It was common knowledge, at least amongst your colleagues, that you were regarded as a suspect, right from the first day, that Saturday?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: I want you to tell us or to bridge that gap regarding you as a suspect to knowing you did it without you telling anyone. Surely my clients - I've heard some comment regarding them, but they're not prophets.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I know these people very well and they knew very well that it was I.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan, my clients deny that they ever knew as a fact that you killed your wife. That's prior to your application being reported of in the media, I think at the end of 1996.

MR BELLINGAN: No, that's not correct, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: They did suspect you all along yes, that's true, and especially after you were convicted in the criminal Court they more or less accepted it but they never knew it as a fact because you never told anyone.

MR BELLINGAN: I didn't need ...(end of tape)

MR WAGENER: ... my clients, Mr Bellingan, deny that they were part of any coverup afterwards in any sense whatsoever, do you have comment?

MR BELLINGAN: I hear the denial, Mr Chairman, and my evidence is correct as I've given it.

MR WAGENER: In fact I haven't seen the record of the criminal trial but I'm told by Mr Oosthuizen that he gave evidence against you, which contributed to your conviction. Do you dispute that?

MR BELLINGAN: Amongst Mr Oosthuizen's evidence, Mr Chairman, was the fact that I had obtained the new hints(?) on investigation of crime which would provide a plausible excuse as to why I was taken to the safe-house. And it was put to Brigadier Oosthuizen by my counsel and he still said no, he still insists that despite the fact that the new manual said that people should not be taken immediately to such a scene, he still would have done it anyway. I know what the attorney's referring to, he's referring to a conversation that myself and Brigadier Oosthuizen had regarding the pair of shoes. And my evidence is correct as I've given it over here about that. The judge did refer to Brigadier Oosthuizen's evidence, also in the sense of Brigadier Oosthuizen saying that I was an excellent officer.

MR WAGENER: No that's true, Mr Bellingan, at some stage you were.

To save time, Mr Bellingan, the basic denials of my clients are contained in that letter you have in front of you, pages 13, 14, 15 through to 16, and without me having to repeat it all, those are my instructions, that's what our evidence amount to and that's what we will argue at the end. I accept that your lawyers have gone through this document with you so I needn't repeat everything.

MR BELLINGAN: I'm sure some of this is true, Mr Chairman, but I can't respond to it all at the moment.

MR WAGENER: In conclusion, Mr Bellingan, you stole money from Numsa, unauthorised as a private venture by yourself. That's what we will contend in argument.

MR BELLINGAN: That's not correct, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: We also will argue that your wife found this, she found this out, she stumbled upon this and she was about, or she threatened to expose you which could have caused your bright career in the South African Police considerable harm. That Mr Bellingan, coupled to the affair that you already had with another woman, prompted you, as a violent person, to murder your wife. And you did these two acts without any political motive whatsoever.

MR BELLINGAN: That's not at all correct, Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wagener, I just want to draw your attention to this one aspect. We have noted that you have put in a generic way the contents of your letter to the witness, but perhaps with reference to paragraph 2.4 on page 13, that's in volume 3.1, there was an allegation in the testimony of this particular witness that he had given some of the Numsa money to General Erasmus. I don't know whether you want to be specific on that particular point because you have dealt quite explicitly with General Erasmus' response in regard to, and even Mr Oosthuizen's response in regard to that Numsa question.

MR WAGENER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, you're kind.

Mr Bellingan, with reference to the page 13 referred to by the Chairman, maybe we should have been more specific there. Mr Erasmus cannot recall any incident where he received money from you and therefore he denies the allegation made by you in this respect.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I just for record purposes just note and place on record that when this document was dealt with by Mr Wagener, or firstly, this document was given to me by Mr Wagener before the pretrial conference, what he has pointed out now, he didn't do so then. A month and a half expired until this hearing. He didn't point this out to me or any, well to me, before the start of this hearing. When he cross-examined, he didn't point this out. He only - and I'm just placing this on record for record purposes he has only pointed it out now after you had alerted him to that specific paragraph. I will argue about that later, Mr Chairman. I just want to point that out.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, yes, Mr du Plessis is correct, I may have forgotten certain other aspects as well, it's quite possible but thank you for alerting me to this point.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, no, I had intended to raise that mero motu in any case, even if Mr Wagener hadn't put anything more specific than he had on the previous occasion because I had formed the impression that General Erasmus will appear before us at some or other stage.

MR WAGENER: Most definitely, he as well as my other clients are under subpoena, so I assume that they will be called as witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Very well.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm reminded that perhaps you haven't had an opportunity to respond if you wish, to the improved proposition that was put to you.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes. Mr Chairman, I have absolutely no doubt that General Erasmus knows very well about the Numsa thing but it may be that paragraph 2.1 is correctly answered by him, that he cannot recall. And then also his memory may have let him down there.

Also the fact that he says money from me not used for operational purposes. I assume that General Erasmus' integrity in regard to his honesty to the operational matters of the Security Branch is not in question at all by myself, Mr Chairman. It's not - obviously any of this money would have been utilised by him for bona fide purposes. That is my recollection of General Erasmus.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Bellingan.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER

CHAIRPERSON: Now Mr Chaskalson, you need to give me some indication, yours would be the last opportunity of questions. How much have you got that you need to cover with the witness?

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Chairman, unfortunately I've got a fairly substantial amount of questioning that I'd like to put to him. What I would suggest that we do is, firstly I had handed out some documents that I was going to be using. They aren't marked but they're extracts from a diary mostly, with one or two loose leaves. If we could just mark that as bundle 6. I think that is the next bundle. It is conceivable that some of these extracts are referred to in the other documents, but unfortunately all of my files have gone, so I can't check that.

I have spoken to all of the legal representatives and it seems as if everyone is agreeable for the two week period commencing from I think it's Monday, 12 April, which I believe is just after the Easter public holidays. And I understand that this venue is available as well. I would suggest that this would be a convenient time for us to adjourn the proceedings until then and then I would resume with the cross-examination at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Chaskalson. Yes, no, I wasn't going to allow the cross-examination to be done partly. Yes, Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I'm sorry, I've been now approached by my client in respect of documents which I have never seen ever before which he informs me that he wishes to place before you before the adjournment and I suppose, although I won't be able to consult with him but I'll ask him in re-examination, and I suppose he'll be able to explain to you what the documents are about.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I don't see any particular difficulty but let me just hear what the attitude is with the ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, perhaps I may just give an indication of what these documents are. As I say I have never seen them before but the one he has given me is an application for legal representation at State costs in regard to the functions of the TRC. It's dated 7 May 1996.

And then the other document contains handwritten notes - I'm not sure what these notes are about, Mr Chairman, they seem to be notes that Mr Bellingan made that he - oh - Mr Chairman, I'm informed that when he was asked if he had any documentation pertaining to notes that he made in conversations with the TRC, he'd go and look and see what he's got, and apparently this is what he's got.

MR BELLINGAN: ...(indistinct) specifically referred to as the annexure to the first application.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh.

MR BELLINGAN: This is part of that, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, look I don't think there could be any difficulty at this stage. Hand it in provisionally, people can have a look at it between now and when we reconvene and we can formally deal with it. It might be good idea that we have access to it at this stage. We might save time when we reconvene.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR CHASKALSON: Could I maybe take custody of it and I will make copies and undertake to distribute it to everybody else once we get back to Cape Town?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I was in fact going to ask for that logistical arrangement to be made. So let's take it on that basis and we will deal with it formally when we reconvene. ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps - I'm very sorry, may I just perhaps place on record that I have spoken to Mr Trengove about the diaries and he has given me an indication that they will provide me with the diaries, to have sight of the diaries and I thank them for it, and we will then take that up and if necessary I will deal with that next time. I just want to place that on record. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: That's in order. Mr Chaskalson?

MR CHASKALSON: Sorry, just I think there was a little while while Mr Bellingan's mike was off and just for the record, the second document which is a handwritten document and untitled, I think Mr Bellingan referred to as his notes which have found their way as the annexure to the first application. That just wasn't recorded.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, alright. Well we are unable obviously, to conclude the proceedings. Under those circumstances we will have to adjourn. We have a mutually convenient date to hopefully finalise the proceedings.

Perhaps I could indicate that, as a Panel I have indicated this previously, we're quite serious about concluding the proceedings at the next session which amongst other things would require legal representatives to be in a position to address us at the end of the proceedings. So you can accept that once we have concluded the testimony we would require the legal representatives to address us before we finalise the proceedings.

Under those circumstances we will then postpone the hearing to this venue on Monday the 12th of April 1999 and at this stage we will reconvene at 9 o'clock in the morning. We're adjourned.

HEARING ADJOURNS TO 12TH APRIL 1999