CHAIRPERSON: For purposes of the record it is Wednesday 27th January 1999. It is the continuation of the amnesty application of Mr Bellingan. The panel and appearances are as indicated on the record previously.
Mr Bellingan, you are still under oath.
EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: (cont)
Right Mr Bellingan, we ended your evidence yesterday where you testified that you had returned to Pietermaritzburg or to Durban and thereafter to Pietermaritzburg after the murder and that you were at the house of your sister, Judy White, and we stopped just before you were notified of the murder. Could you just deal with whatever happened after the murder in the house of your sister and thereafter? Just deal with that specific day, the Saturday, first.
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, a telephone call came through to say that either that I should come back to Pretoria or that I should get in touch with my immediate supervisor, I can't recall exactly what it was. There were some telephone calls made. I spoke to Colonel Oosthuizen shortly thereafter. We had a brief conversation wherein he said that I should get back to Pretoria as quickly as possible, to at least take the first available flight back, get back as quickly as possible.
I then did not wish to show any nervousness so I asked my sister to phone home as it was quite obvious to me what the matter was about. My sister said that in fact she could not get through, the telephone had been put down, there was a strange voice that had answered, the phone was put down. So I then telephoned and spoke to the domestic servant, Lydia Kubeka who stated that Janine was dead. The full realisation of what I had done hit me. The operational state of mind was then overwhelmed by my personal emotions about the matter. I broke down.
From there on arrangements were basically made by my family to get back to Johannesburg and I in fact flew back to Jan Smuts at I think it was 5 o'clock on Saturday.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright and when you arrived at Jan Smuts, who was there to meet you?
MR BELLINGAN: At Jan Smuts Airport Mr Chairman to meet me was a friend of mine, a Mr Core, Tony Core, Colonel Oosthuizen, Colonel Derick Botha and Captain Deon Els. I remember those three, there may have been more I can't recall.
MR DU PLESSIS: And where did you go after they met you at the airport?
MR BELLINGAN: My sister who was with me went with Tony to my home. I went with Colonel Oosthuizen to a safe house and at the safe house, called Casino, the other colleagues that were at the airport met us again over there.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright Mr Bellingan now where was the safe house?
MR BELLINGAN: It was in Midrand Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: And why did you have to go to a safe house?
MR BELLINGAN: In preparation, Mr Chairman, I believed for the fact that the investigating officer would be obviously approaching me and that I should basically get my act together.
MR DU PLESSIS: Did these officers say anything or ask you anything about your possible involvement with the murder, can you remember?
MR BELLINGAN: No none of them said anything about that to me expect Colonel Oosthuizen who just said to me that I was suspected and that I should be careful. That was all.
MR DU PLESSIS: Would you regard as normal practice in a situation such as this to have taken you to a safe house?
MR BELLINGAN: For the Security Branch yes, not generally for the police force, Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Right let me rephrase the question. If you had performed a Security Branch operation would that have been the normal action that would have been taken after such an operation?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman but there was no other particular reason.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright now what was your subjective view or your thoughts on what the others who had picked you up at the airport thought about your possible involvement. Can you say anything about that or can't you?
MR BELLINGAN: I automatically assumed that they would assist me with a cover-up of the operation.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright and what happened at the safe house?
MR BELLINGAN: I spoke to some of my colleagues for some length of time then a minister of religion from the South African Police was brought through to the safe house to speak to me and he did that for a very long time and thereafter the investigating officer came to interview me.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright Mr Bellingan, I think there was evidence that your kids were eventually placed in your custody that night, is that right?
MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman. My two children were at a very late stage brought through and thereafter I went home.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright now Mr Bellingan, we don't have to go into detail about the investigation except for purposes of the next application, Schedule 21, the actions after Janine's murder. I would like to deal with that separately. Before we do that can you turn to page 429 please of Bundle 1, that is your application. You have elaborated now in detail on the second last paragraph on page 429, the fact that you staged a burglary and killed Janine. We have gone through that evidence now. Could you deal with the last paragraph on page 429 please?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, inside the envelope which I recovered under the car seat was also a list of names and codenames of operatives and some car registration numbers, details of some projects and names of some sources and agents. There was also a list of some activities I'd been involved in for example the arson at Wits University, the Khotso House incident, the real details of the Numsa matter as well as a note concerning a request that I be considered for cooperation with the ANC in terms of revealing what information I knew in terms in return for indemnity from action against me.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright can you deal with the first paragraph on page 430 please?
MR BELLINGAN: My colleagues know that it is I that committed the murder. At no stage did anyone in the South African Police rebuke me for the deed. General Erasmus said that I should keep quiet and bide my time. The investigating officer was harassed for prying too much into the case. There was also much covering up. I understood this to be condonation.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright Mr Bellingan, could we perhaps - and Mr Chairman, I think it would be prudent to deal here in any event with the evidence pertaining to the last schedule as it falls into the chronological order so the evidence in respect of the last schedule I'll present now as part of the evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes please do that Mr du Plessis.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
Now Mr Bellingan, could we perhaps just elaborate on the first sentence there, "your colleagues knew it was you". Why do you say that, can you explain that to me?
MR BELLINGAN: From remarks made to me, Mr Chairman, for example Colonel Oosthuizen saying to me that I should be "wees versigtig, hulle praat later met jou" - "be careful, they will speak to you later". Others telling me "moenie betrokke raak" - "don't get involved", referring to the investigation. "Alles sal regkom" - "Everything will turn out fine" who were telling me that the investigating officer is having a hard time and then a little smile.
MR DU PLESSIS: Who were these people, can you remember?
MR BELLINGAN: Close colleagues Mr Chairman, I don't remember, it was over a period of time and it happened quite a lot. There were also offers to assist in terms of covering, in terms of alibi, etcetera, etcetera, people giving me advice.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, let us go into some detail in respect of that. Were there offers made in respect of covering up?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, tampering with evidence. Yes Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Can you give more details please?
MR BELLINGAN: I gained the impression that especially the forensic evidence that there was, was messed up, that the Numsa side of things was messed up and at a later stage I got a message supposedly from a - for I understood it, from a senior officer at Brixton Murder and Robbery to say that I shouldn't worry "Daar is geen saak nie" - "There is no case".
At a certain stage Colonel Oosthuizen also said to me that he was being suspected and had to do some explaining as to the missing forensics, for example he spoke to me about a hair that had - one of my hairs that had changed shape and size and colour etcetera, etcetera, on route to the forensic laboratory and that senior people, some Generals, had been forced to conduct an investigation into the tampering with forensic evidence.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Bellingan, we will get to that part of the record of the evidence at the inquest. I'm going to refer you to that where Major Steyn, investigating officer, testified that a hair that was picked up by him at the window which was a red hair which he thought was yours, eventually became a hair of your deceased wife?
MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Is it this what you are testifying about?
MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, later on I realised that must be what the complaint was at that specific time. Later on there was an issue of another hair which I'd heard had been introduced to the crime scene and that was a negroid hair.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, do you know anything about this hair?
MR BELLINGAN: In fact, sorry Mr Chairman, it wasn't introduced to the crime scene, it was introduced to the evidence from the crime scene at a later stage.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright Mr Bellingan did you ever have personal knowledge of tampering with evidence? Were you involved with tampering of evidence?
MR BELLINGAN: No, I personally Mr Chairman other than obstructing the truth from emerging. I personally never touched any of the evidence in terms of after the commission of the offence.
MR DU PLESSIS: And what were your perceptions and what did you think about all these things that were said to you by your colleagues and the question of tampering with evidence. What was your view pertaining to that?
MR BELLINGAN: It was very clear to me that nothing at all would come of the case Mr Chairman, that there was no evidence and what evidence there was could be explained. For example another thing was, just after the murder in fact I had a conversation with Colonel Oosthuizen at my house about the shoes and the paint marks on the shoes and he pointed out to me that most likely there would be paint marks on many of my shoes and I should mention that to Brixton Murder and Robbery. In fact I never mentioned that because they did not come back to me and speak to me about that but I certainly would have mentioned it and I went and put some paint marks on some of the shoes thereafter thinking that it was perhaps a good idea.
MR DU PLESSIS: Right Mr Bellingan and you have already testified that you did not testify the truth at the inquest or at the trial, is that correct?
MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman, I did not tell the truth at the inquest or at the trial.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you also did not tell the truth in any of the statements that you made, is that correct?
MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright and then you say here the investigation officer was harassed for prying too much into the case. Have you heard or do you know of any specific examples of him being harassed?
MR BELLINGAN: Phone calls to him Mr Chairman amongst others by Colonel Oosthuizen as this is as Willie Steyn told me that he had told him that he knows he's at the bank looking into the Numsa things etcetera, etcetera. That Willie Steyn was having a hard time in general and that Willie Steyn also complained to me at a certain point in time and I assured him that it was not I who was harassing him and it was not I, Mr Chairman. I know that he was also allowed to go on a wild goose chase in believing that the Numsa operation was - a certain friend of mine was involved in the operation and that was fine, I allowed him to continue with that line because this friend of mine had absolutely nothing at all to do with it.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, insofar as I am presenting hearsay evidence here, this evidence forms part of the inquest record to which I will refer just now and Mr Steyn will be called as a witness in these proceedings.
Now Mr Bellingan was anything mentioned to you, do you know anything about the dockets of the Numsa investigation which disappeared?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, in the Eastern Cape dockets had disappeared. In the particular investigation into the Numsa matter with which I was involved directly I know that nothing was coming of the case. I also heard that the commercial branch in Pretoria was an ex-Security Branch officer who was working there was assisting with some of the cover ups.
MR DU PLESSIS: Can you remember who that was?
MR BELLINGAN: I was told that it was a Major Bernie Lay, I don't know whether that is true or not, I personally never had dealings with a Major Lay in respect of these particular matters although I was friendly with him.
MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr Bellingan, do you know anything of threats received by Major Willie Steyn during his investigation received by him, death threats in respect of him and his family?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes I've heard that he had been threatened not to pry into the case.
MR DU PLESSIS: Right, were you responsible for any of those threats?
MR BELLINGAN: Not at all Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Bellingan now you say in the last sentence"
"I understood this to be condonation"
MR BELLINGAN: Sorry can I just add there I was of course indirectly responsible but I did not perpetrate those actions.
MR DU PLESSIS: You say you understood this to be condonation. Can you just explain a little bit better to the Committee what you mean by that?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman this murder was necessary for the covering up of a number of activities. I believed that senior people would know immediately that it was I who did this and that had they had a particular problem with it they would have confronted me about it immediately. Had they felt that I had correctly used my discretion then they would cover up the matter.
MR DU PLESSIS: Did anybody ever - of the Security Branch, ever directly confront you and ask you if it was you who committed this murder?
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright can we deal with ...[intervention]
MR BELLINGAN: It's quite obvious that they knew it was me.
MR DU PLESSIS: Can you deal with the second paragraph, page 430?
MR BELLINGAN: After I left the Security Branch in 1993, August, due to post-traumatic stress, an inquest was held which was in fact early the following year in 1994. After my first day's testimony, after I had committed myself to denial of the murder as well as any involvement in certain covert activities, Colonel Piesang Nel brought me an indemnity form to sign. He told me that nobody could arrest me thereafter should anything happen.
MR DU PLESSIS: Did you believe him?
MR BELLINGAN: Absolutely Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, the next paragraph you have actually already dealt with already. Do you want to add anything to the fact that General Erasmus said the investigation would be messed up?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I'd like to add something to this other paragraph first.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, please go ahead?
MR BELLINGAN: Prior to the inquest Colonel Oosthuizen had told me that it wasn't necessary for me to attend the inquest and that I would do better to in fact stay away from it. I discussed the problem then of obtaining all of the evidence and what would be said there, etcetera, etcetera, and he was in agreement that I should tape record the proceedings. I then proceeded to make the necessary arrangements. I asked him whether he would make a tape recorder available to me despite the fact that I was out of the Security Branch at that stage. He said yes but I never did go and collect the tape recorder from him, I used a friend of mines and in fact did send someone to tape record the proceedings. People just presumed in was a journalist because the tape recording did not come out clearly from the audience so we moved and sat closer to the front where the journalists were sitting.
When Colonel Nel met me that night at the Marlesol Restaurant at Bruma Lake and during our dinner that I presume the secret fund paid for, he said to me that Colonel Oosthuizen had asked for a report from me on who had said what at the inquest, etcetera, etcetera. Just a brief report and I said to him no problem, I would give him that. We then
made arrangements, he said he was going to the Cape to arrange for other people to sign indemnity forms and that he would be back that weekend and he told me the time of his flight returning from Cape Town and that could I perhaps meet him at the airport and then hand this report to him which I subsequently did. I met Colonel Piesang at the airport. It was an evening, if I remember correctly, that weekend, Friday, Saturday or Sunday evening or late afternoon. I believe he had stayed on a little bit longer in Cape Town perhaps for a rugby match, something like that, I can't recall exactly and I met him in the restaurant at the airport. We sat down, had some coffee, gave him the report and we just talked in general and then I left, went back. This was of course prior to the testimony of some of my colleagues including Colonel Oosthuizen. I think the next week they were called to testify.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, have you got anything to add to the next paragraph? That was the question.
CHAIRPERSON: We've already dealt with this to an extent where General Erasmus said that the investigation will be messed up now. Is there anything that needs to be added there?
MR BELLINGAN: During one visit ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: Anything relevant that is?
MR BELLINGAN: I don't think so Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Right, can we deal with the last paragraph please?
MR BELLINGAN: This was subsequently done, the investigating officer Willie Steyn can explain about that. He might also recall a comment made to me, that he made to me in January 1993, to the effect that I was taking the rap for senior people, that is what he said, I did not answer him obviously. I gained the impression then also that he was just fishing.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright Mr Bellingan, from page 431 to page 439 there are certain findings made after the inquest and certain conclusions drawn from the evidence. Now it is not necessary for us to go into everything in respect of that, I want to refer you perhaps specifically to page 438. Mr Chairman, I will rely on the rest in argument, it's not necessary to read to you the findings.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes I would appreciate that, it is part of the papers, the conclusions that the inquest court came to so I don't think there's any need for your client to read it out to us.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Bellingan, just the second paragraph, it says"
"We came to no firm conclusion as to the motive which may have actuated the accused, whatever the true motive in fact was, it is known only to the accused."
Now the motive which you have testified about for the killing of your wife. You have testified that it related that the evidence that she had. Can you elaborate on your motive from that point of view and specifically deal with the question if you would have done this if there wasn't the question in your marriage of the sensitive information that you wife had and the threats that she made to expose that evidence?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I wanted to prevent Janine from exposing information on the covert activities of the Security Branch. I did not also want to be in a position where I would be forced to go against any of my colleagues and I also felt that I should be loyal to the National Party. I also very aware of the fact that certain agreements had been signed, negotiations were vitally important in that point in time and that there were going to be a lot more probes and investigations into the activities of the intelligence community and that had Janine put me on centre spot over there, I would have been forced to make certain revelations about mine and my colleagues activities and not only that, Mr Chairman, at the time there was discussions about the beginning of the formal talks which were referred to as Codessa One. These things were vitally important for the transformation Mr Chairman, for the survival of people in this country.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Bellingan, you set out your political motivations from page 441 and I just want you to confirm what is stated in your applications from 441 to page 444 please? This gives the background of the whole situation of the Security Branch which we have testified about, the fact that you were loyal to the cause and the whole background situation in respect of secret operations and covert operations. We don't have to go into that detail. Right up to the last paragraph of page 444 do you confirm that is correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, I'd like to just add that it was important that the negotiations and the reform process be accelerated and finalised as clear as possible specifically to avoid too much scratching into the activities of the estate otherwise the government would have lost total credibility.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, start with the last paragraph of 444 and then over to page 445, can we deal with that please.
MR BELLINGAN: It became clear to me on various occasions that Janine had abused the position of trust that she had regarding myself and regarding my colleagues and her access to information. It also became clear to me that she intended to fully exploit the position to gain an advantage and to hit out at the Security Branch which by that time she hated. It is easier to deal with a physical threat such as terrorism and sabotage than such an insidious one. To my knowledge and belief, no mechanism existed to assist me to deal with this problem. I had already tried sacrificing my career without the desired effect. I refer there Mr Chairman to the time when I was willing to leave and go and work at Standard Brass, Iron and Steel. The only thing left to do was to act decisively. Janine's actions put her into the category of a threat to past operations and existing ones as well as the supporter of the liberation struggle.
In reaction to Janine deciding to go all the way, I believed that the only way to silence her was to eliminate her. My behaviour was not motivated by some or other irrelevant personal factor. I believed that Janine had to be stopped for political reasons. At the very most my judgement may have been slightly effected by the accumulated stress of my work and the fact that it was a desperate situation. I say that my actions promoted the interests of the Security Branch and the National Party.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Bellingan can we just stop there? If there was not - if the situation in respect of her knowledge of the Security Branch operations did not exist, if it was only your marriage relationship which you had to consider, would you ever have considered killing your wife?
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman not at all.
MR DU PLESSIS: Did your marriage relationship with her have anything to do with your decision to kill her and I mean the personal relationship you had with her?
MR BELLINGAN: Only in the sense that it exacerbated the situation. I never had access to normal support structures in the sense of having the opportunity to go to her brother or her parents and saying to them could you please help out over here. There was no such possibility and I could not control Janine, so in that sense, only in that sense Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright Mr Bellingan then do you confirm the rest from page 445 to page 447?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes I do Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright and then the Afrikaans part in page 447, just to make this clear Mr Chairman, this is a general motivation in respect of the elimination really of activists and it was included in each clients' application that I act for. Just some of the allegations here may not be as relevant to this specific situation. We have faced previously problems in cross-examination with this because it is really a general background from the security force point of view of the whole situation, it may not be necessarily relevant, some of the points made here to this specific application and I would appeal to you and my learned friends to take that into account during cross-examination has been a problem previously.
Mr Bellingan, you have read this Afrikaans part as a general background to the reasons why activists were eliminated. Does that confirm with your view and your knowledge of such acts executed by the security forces?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright and then page 453 you deal with the question of orders and approval. Now it is true that you never received a specific order to commit this murder, is that right?
MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright you have testified about your views on this which you formed especially in respect of actions after the murder. The documents you referred to here we don't have to go in detail into these documents Mr Bellingan, some of them we have done previously in respect of the Numsa matter. Suffice it would be sufficient to ask you, do you confirm this and what role did these documents play in your views on the authorisation that you though you had when you committed the murder? These documents played a very big role Mr Chairman. These documents are indirect orders because they formed part of my training, they formed part of the way that I was expected to react and to respond.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, maybe just to refer to the most important part of this page, page 455, this in an excerpt from a document "Trade Craft" which was given to you at Daisy Farm. The last two points made there on page 455 can you deal with please?
MR BELLINGAN: The quotation on page 31 of the document reads
"Take care against the possible uncovering of incriminating, sensitive or classified documents."
"Beware of discussing sensitive or classified information with you family."
MR DU PLESSIS: Right Mr Bellingan, did you regard your actions - or in what light did you regard your actions with reference to the counter-revolutionary strategy of the security forces?
MR BELLINGAN: As forming part of that - part and parcel of that Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Right and then Mr Bellingan we have dealt with your evidence pertaining to Schedule 21 on page 463, we don't have to deal with anything further except to ask you do you confirm the political objectives and the other information provided there from page 465 until page 474?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman I do.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, Mr Bellingan has provided me with a further document expanding a little bit on his political motivation. May I beg leave to hand this document up to you and I suggest it be marked Exhibit C.
...[inaudible] to the Committee shortly what is the relevance of Operation Vula and what did you want to say here without reading everything?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, basically just that the mind set of a certain faction within the National Liberation Front at the time was still one of seizure of power and not one of going through the negotiation process. So despite signing the agreements with the National Party, the National Liberation Front, certain sectors wanted to continue with violence, wanted to continue to make life difficult for the security forces and they were fully intent on continuing to build arms caches and to conduct illegal intelligence activity.
ADV GCBASHE: Mr Bellingan, I don't want to lose the trend of what you're saying. You speak of National Liberation Front, the paragraph itself refers to the ANC. I'm not sure if you're talking about a liberation front within the ANC or you're talking about something totally different. It's just a new term to me in the context of South African politics. Just help me through that before you go any further?
MR BELLINGAN: It was the broad grouping Mr Chairman which was represented by the ANC/SACP Cosatu Alliance. It included people such as the present head of the armed forces, General Sipiwe Nyanda. It included people such as ...[intervention]
ADV GCABASHE: Sorry just for - again I don't want to rush you. Are you talking about the ANC and it's allies or are you talking about ANC and the PAC?
MR BELLINGAN: And it's allies yes.
ADV GCABASHE: That's all I wanted to know.
MR BELLINGAN: I understand. Mr Chairman, the reason why I use the terminologies because it's terminology used in the Vula document itself. The letters NLF I'm sure appear in here - NLM - National Liberation Movement. You'll see it on page 3 Mr Chairman so it is referred to in the documents but just by way of explaining what it is without having to read through the whole document, I used the term in that sense although it is not in the first paragraph. Thank you for pointing it out Mr Chairman., so I refer to the ANC and radical allies who were not only - who were not intent on the negotiation process.
The document was an indication to me that we had to be particularly careful because the intelligence operatives involved with these matters in the opposition would be scratching for information about the Security Branch in order to foment violence in the country, in order to prevent the negotiations and then even if this information had come to the attention of the so called Doves, those that were quite intent on the negotiation process going through, they still would have been able to gain a completely unfair strategic advantage at the very best. At the very best.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright Mr Bellingan, then you deal on page 6 of this document, paragraph 4, the last paragraph, can you just deal with that?
MR BELLINGAN: Sorry can I just add Mr Chairman that I insert some of the quotations for an indication that we did model our actions along the lines of other intelligence organisations as well as the opposition and they also speak her about the sensitivity of family matters etcetera, etcetera. I just mention it as well in the document itself.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, page 6, paragraph 4, the last paragraph on page 6.
MR BELLINGAN: I say: "I had no doubt that the ANC treated traitors very harshly, usually they were liquidated. In this regard it should be borne in mind that we were encouraged to use the methods of the enemy." I quote
"The State Security Council meeting of the 12th May 1986 where it says underminers with their own methods which can be combatted"
MR DU PLESSIS: Do you have any knowledge of traitors of the Security Branch who had been eliminated at that time for that reason?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, there were quite a few going back to the Smit family and then in particular surrounding the Harmse Commission there was an ex-colleague of mine, Brian Ngulunga, there was the pursuit of Dirk Coetzee and the resultant death of Beki Mbangene, the attorney that worked at Cheedle, Thompson and Huyson. There was some askaris that were liquidated as it were. There were others as well Mr Chairman that ...[intervention]
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Bellingan, there's been evidence before the Truth Commission of similar such incidents such as the killing of Motasi and his wife, the policeman, as well as evidence has already been presented about the incident of Brian Ngulunga.
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr Heering, is that correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes a colleague of mine, Jacques Hefter has applied for amnesty for the Hammanskraal matter that the Advocate referred to.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright then page 7 paragraph 5, you have already actually dealt with that. Paragraph 6 - can you deal with the second paragraph of paragraph 6 of page 7?
MR BELLINGAN: In the course of the year I had been involved in counter-espionage investigations for example during an operation at a Johannesburg D.I.S. office. Sensitive information emanating from our Johannesburg surveillance unit emerged. I spent considerable effort to trace the perpetrator including the polygraph test which I had introduced into the Security Branch. What had happened Mr Chairman is that during a breaking into one of the ANC offices in Johannesburg documentation was uncovered which could only have come from someone at the surveillance unit so the idea was then for me to trace who that could have been. Such investigations focused on the security establishments, especially after the Inkatha great scandal broke in July 1991. Then in order to appease Mr Nelson Mandela, the government appointed the Khan Commission and secrecy was by then an obsession.
MR DU PLESSIS: Could you please carry on, on page 8?
MR BELLINGAN: I was involved in investigations inter alia into Rashied who was responsible for the '83 Pretoria blast. Brian, Security Branch agent suspected of leading the material which led to the Inkathagate scandal. Guy, a Security Branch agent suspecting of walking over.
MR DU PLESSIS: You refer to three tapes. Can you just tell the Committee what tapes these are?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, they're tape recordings of these people's telephones from around that time period, middle of 1991.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman we are in possession of those tape recordings, that's not really relevant for purposes of this application but I just mentioned that to be hundred percent complete in everything we're presenting to you.
MR DU PLESSIS: If anybody of the TRC is interested in the tape recordings they are available.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes and any of the parties. We certainly are not at this stage.
MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.
Alright can you carry on please Mr Bellingan.
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, can I just correct an error over here? The in brackets (after Brian) it says Security Branch agent. That should be - he was a full time member of the staff in fact, he was not an agent in the sense of being an agent.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright please carry on?
MR BELLINGAN: All of these types of investigation had an effect on me in that secrecy was of paramount importance and I was not going to be responsible for the government's plans being jeopardised. In early September the National Peace Accord was signed which paved the way for negotiations to begin in earnest. This also led to the Goldstone Commission ultimately in terms of investigations into so called scandals within the state ranks and the resultant spilling of the beans by our own personnel.
CODESSA in December 1991 would not have been possible if Janine had continued with her plans neither would the record of understanding have been signed if the ANC could not publicly trust the National Party.
MR DU PLESSIS: Are you sure of that date Mr Bellingan?
MR BELLINGAN: I'm not sure of these dates Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Right then the next page, page 9?
MR BELLINGAN: Political violence was very high in the era of negotiations and would have been higher had all of the Security Branch's dirty washing been exposed then. Both the National Party and the Security Branch had an enormous need for secrecy especially at this time of negotiations.
It is my further opinion that had Janine made the disclosures the settling of an election date, the granting of the Nobel Peace Prize to President de Klerk, the timeous finalisation of the interim constitution, the installing of the Transitional Executive Council and the suspension of the armed struggle by the PAC would not have occurred.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Bellingan, was that your personal subjective view at the time of the murder and thereafter?
MR BELLINGAN: Up to this paragraph it contains my subjective view at the time of the murder. This last paragraph I've just read now contains my opinion at a time I drew up this document Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright then Mr Bellingan, then you refer to documents we have already referred to in the last paragraph, you don't have to deal with it.
Mr Chairman if you will then just bear with me, the last aspect I want to deal with are certain excerpts of the evidence of the inquest. You will realise when I refer you to those parts of the evidence that I'm actually doing things with a two fold objective. First that is to point you to certain pages in the evidence which are of importance and then to ask Mr Bellingan how it fits in with his evidence and what his views are in respect of that evidence. I will try and be as quick as possible Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: I'll appreciate that, perhaps just the most necessary for your purposes?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, if I can refer you to bundle 3.2 please which starts on page 240? Mr Chairman I'm going to refer to three main issues which are important for purposes of Mr Bellingan's evidence and his comments thereon. That relates firstly to his wife's disclosures made to other people, the condition of their marriage especially just before her death and then thirdly, her threats to expose sensitive information and then fourthly really the difficulty with the investigation. So there are really four issues but I'm going to deal with them right from the beginning to the end so I'm not going to deal with each incident in a separate subject.
Mr Bellingan the first person's evidence I want to deal with is Mr Bastiaan's, he was your neighbour is that right?
MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, page 241 he testified
"Mrs Bellingan claimed to have information about the activities of her husband that were dangerous for her and if she would reveal to them to the public she was afraid he would silence her because she might reveal information. That is what she conveyed to us."
"Was it your impression that made Mr Bellingan aware of the fact that she had this information that she was intending to make it public?"
And he was asked about the question if Janine had told him about your activities and he said:
"She would but we really did not want to hear too much about it. That was not our business and we were not even sure if it was factual or not."
and then on page 242 he testifies:
"Was anything of money ever mentioned to you?"
"Yes she mentioned that she had discovered amongst his goods that he had several bank accounts, that there were numerous financial transactions which he tried to explain to us but did not really manage to convince us."
Now did you ever know that she told Bastiaans of these things that she gave Bastiaans information about your operations and do you want to comment at all on this?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman after the murder I was told the neighbours had some letters or something of that nature so at the first opportunity I had I spoke to Mr Bastiaans about that because we were on friendly terms, we were on speaking terms and he was pretty much an anti-trade union anti-ANC type of person so I did in fact try and find out what exactly he knew, that was after the murder.
MR DU PLESSIS: Do you have any reason to doubt his evidence that was given at the inquest Mr Bellingan?
MR BELLINGAN: No I have no reason to doubt this at all Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, then page 243, in the middle of the page he was asked if she had brought any documents to his house and he said
"She brought on two occasions goods to our house and asked us to keep them, to keep it for her. The first time was a small suitcase. Several couple of years before she was murdered she asked us to keep the suitcase for her and after a short while I instructed my wife to return it because it was not our business."
"Later on, perhaps closer to the time of her murder she brought two plastic bags with goods in it. I do not know what goods, we never investigated the goods and again asked us to keep them and we now became aware of it, I asked my wife to take them back."
Did you know that or did you only subsequently become aware of it?
MR BELLINGAN: I subsequently - Ron Bastiaans told me about that.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright and then page 244?
ADV GCABASHE: Can I just ask, what did you get back from Bastiaans in that case if she had taken - if the wife had taken back the parcels your wife had left?
MR BELLINGAN: I got nothing back from Mr Bastiaans Mr Chairman, he had nothing, there was nothing that they had. The rumour from my office was incorrect.
MR DU PLESSIS: No but I think Mr Bellingan may I just clarify the question. From this evidence he testifies that he gave the goods back to your wife Janine, did you ever know about that?
MR BELLINGAN: No I never knew about that Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Do you know what was in these plastic bags and in the suitcase that he testified about?
MR BELLINGAN: I presume it was documentation which Janine returned to me after our holiday to the Transkei.
MR DU PLESSIS: Right and then page 244 he testified in the middle of the page
"We discussed" - that was with you, "we discussed everything that was known at the time, he indicated to me that he was very worried that the line of investigation would result in him in his having to reveal secret information of his activities"
Did you have such a discussion with him?
MR BELLINGAN: There was a discussion like that Mr Chairman. As I've said, my objective which I've never explained to anyone before was really to probe and see exactly what they knew, what they have, did they have any more documents. So it was in the light of that, that I was talking to Bastiaans about the sensitivity of the matters.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright and then can you turn to page 247 please? There the question was asked to Mr Bastiaans what the documents were about and he said in the first paragraph there
"I cannot answer, we never looked at the documents, we do not know what was in the contents what she asked us to keep. Mrs Bellingan alleged that her husband had several bank accounts through which he was moving large sums of money which she was not getting any of to support the house or the family and she suspected they were activities outside of his normal course of work of the police. She also told us that he had told her that they were part of the investigation that he was doing."
And then the last sentence according to your statement she also apparently told you that Mr Bellingan had used several different names and he said yes, that was linked with the transaction that - banking. Did you know that your wife was talking loosely about these things to neighbours and all sorts of people?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes I knew Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Right. Page 248 - I'm sorry, I marked it there but it only confirms the previous point. Page 249, the last three sentences, the question was
"During that period had you ever seen Mr Bellingan assault or strike presumably his wife?"
"Did you ever see Mr Bellingan threaten her?"
"Did you ever see Mr Bellingan arguing with Mrsrs Bellingan?"
Now Mr Bellingan, did you ever assault your wife before, before the murder?
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright then page 251. The third paragraph there, it says
"What did she say"
"She said that she had threatened that she would reveal evidence of his activities which would be of a most injurious nature to him and others and therefore she was sure that he was going to murder her to silence her so she could not make relevations."
"So she said she actually threatened to do so?"
"She threatened him, yes. She told us that she had
threatened him."and then again - "She said he therefore said he therefore said he will kill her."
Do you want to comment on the threat part first?
MR BELLINGAN: Who she talking about, is this Bastiaans?
MR DU PLESSIS: This is what Bastiaans said, he testifies Mr Bellingan about the fact that your wife had said that she had threatened you to reveal evidence of your activities. Did she threaten you, do you agree with this?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that was in connection with after the visit to the lawyer and the discussions thereafter.
MR DU PLESSIS: Did you ever say to her that you would kill her?
MR BELLINGAN: No, I never said that Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright you did however warn her that she was playing with fire? Could you turn to page 252?
MR BELLINGAN: Sorry Mr Chairman, that is just to point out to you further evidence on the question of the threat and then page 253
"On one occasion she told us that she had threatened to expose the information or to make it public in some way or another."
Alright, do you want to add something to that Mr Bellingan?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes I believe that to be the case Mr Chairman. Page 254 is exactly the same kind of evidence, the first part of 254.
MR DU PLESSIS: Do you want to say something about that?
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright and then the same goes for the first part of page 257, you don't have to comment on that. Then the evidence of Mr Potter, page 260.
Mr Chairman, I may just mention that we have only a few pages of the record of the trial, only those pages attached to the petition and some of those pages are included in here. If necessary I will point out to you which pages contain the evidence at the inquest and which at the trial but I don't think it's important for purposes now, for these purposes. Mr Bellingan, page 262 Mr Potter, that's the brother of Janine, testified that she had told him that you were involved in something pertaining to the trade union Numsa, she mentioned the branch in Pretoria, she opened an exercise book and showed him hand written listing in the left hand column of drawers names and amounts and he testified that she had explained and talked to him about the whole Numsa incident. Did you ever know about this?
MR BELLINGAN: Not at the time Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: What is your view on the fact that she had spoken about this to her brother as well?
MR BELLINGAN: It was a massive security breach Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright page 261?
MR BELLINGAN: Confirms the evidence in that regard.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright and then page 263, the third paragraph there also refers to the discussion about fraudulent activities. Do you want to say anything about that?
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright and then page 266 starts there with, in the middle of the page
"Examination by Mr Knott:"
he refers to a statement of Mr Potter and he says:
"You said that she could get away from her husband and was to expose..."
And he used the word exposed. Can you just elaborate on that and explain to the court what you understand by your sister meaning "I want to expose him"? And then Mr Potter testified the second last paragraph, the sentence on the top:
"She also told me she believed she only may - she could get away from her husband. The only way she could get away from her husband was to expose him."
Well that item I would just like to amend that word expose to the word blackmail, that was the word used. And then the last sentence:
"She said the word blackmail"
Alright and the next page, page 267.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Chairman, I really don't know what we're doing, my learned friend is reading selected passages from the inquest evidence. Now that may be a valuable exercise in argument but I really don't know why we should devote the hearing to that exercise?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes well that is true, I thought that what you had in mind was to refer to extracts from the inquest in respect of which your client had something to add and you seem to have asked him to comment on some of these things that you have quoted. Obviously you know if the purpose is simply to direct our attention to what is contained in the record I don't believe it's necessary at this stage to do that.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I'm asking - the reason why I'm doing that I mentioned is twofold and I would obviously in the normal course of a normal civil trial will never do it this way but we are dealing with a Commission and we are dealing with a situation that is totally different. The reason why I'm doing this is twofold.
Firstly it is to ask Mr Bellingan his comments on that and how does this fit in with the actions that he took and the motive for those actions and subsequent vindication of what he knew at that stage which just supports exactly what he knew at that stage first.
Secondly it is to draw your attention to the fact that such evidence was presented at the inquest. Now Mr Chairman I don't know which witnesses will be called in these proceedings. I don't know if Mr Potter is going to be called, if Lorna Smith is going to be called or Mr Steyn is going to be called. I have decided to call Mr Steyn even though I requested a consultation with him through Mr Chaskalson and he refused to consult with me. I have decided to call Mr Steyn and I will put to Mr Steyn his evidence and seek his confirmation thereof.
MR DU PLESSIS: I however Mr Chairman don't know if these other witnesses are going to be called.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we don't know either.
MR DU PLESSIS: And it is important to place this before you Mr Chairman at this stage of the proceedings.
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no, Mr du Plessis, you see you yourself say it's an enquiry. We don't know what's going to happen, they might be called, they might not be called. It's not necessary for you at this stage to preempt that sort of vague possibilities. We are here to ensure that if there is a subsequent development in this hearing which necessitates your client to place further material before us or to deal with issues which you could reasonably not have anticipated would come up and of course you know you would be given that opportunity to do that but I don't think you should embark on a preemptive strike at this stage. Perhaps you should deal with the matter on the basis that this is before us, the record of the inquest and the selected portions from the trial that you've referred to. We have taken note of that. If your client can add anything substantial to this, certainly let him do that and that is what we were interested in, but as for the rest I think you know your client's interests would be protected if anything happens subsequently.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright Mr Chairman, the only point I want to raise in respect of this and sorry, I don't want to waste time is the question what the position pertaining to the evidence that was given at the inquest would be I intend relying on that evidence as corroboration and confirmation of my client's evidence. If I have an indication from you and from my opponents that the evidence at the inquest will be taken into account, can be taken into account and can be relied upon then I will desist from asking Mr Bellingan his opinions on that, I will present you with a page setting out the exact page references where certain evidence occurs and then I will rely on that. I at this stage don't know what the standing of what the record is and the position is and to what extent I will be allowed to place reliance on that.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes well I think for the purposes of the testimony of your client at this stage because that's what we're interested in, on the face of it there appears no reason why you should be asking your client's opinions on the testimony that is here.
MR DU PLESSIS: Well Mr Chairman ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: I had thought that what he was going to do was to add substantial material.
MR DU PLESSIS: He is going to yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Evidence to whatever has been dealt with in the inquest, whatever relevant aspects of the inquest, impact on our enquiry and he might be able to add testimony on that score. So perhaps you should try and do that at this stage so that we can get his testimony through and as for the status of the record and so on, that's stuff that relates to argument and so on. We can deal with that at the appropriate stage.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, I expected when I embarked on this exercise that if there was any problem with this evidence being placed before you that Mr Trengove would have immediately objected to it which didn't happen obviously so I accept from that point of view that there will not be any such objection but I understand what you're saying, I will leave that argument Mr Chairman and I will then just ask my client in respect of anything that he can have...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: Yes we want to give you as much latitude as can be afforded in the circumstances so let him add anything that we haven't been provided with.
MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you. If you would then just bear with me Mr Chairman so that I can just deal with those issues that I think are important.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Chairman, my learned friend is trying to box me into a position that I've never adopted.
MR TRENGOVE: I have not objected because I've vacillated between the various ways of getting the evidence in chief done as quickly as possible, whether it is to object or rather just to bear it. As far as the evidence of the inquest is concerned we would certainly object to a selection being put before you in isolation. It may well be appropriate to place all the evidence before you and for all of us then to rely on it but we don't have a position in that regard at the moment and my learned friend shouldn't make any assumptions at all but reading it to his client who then responds that he didn't know about it doesn't make it any more admissible.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no I think ...[intervention]
MR DU PLESSIS: No that is true Mr Chairman, that's exactly - and that wasn't the intention to make it more admissible than it would have been
CHAIRPERSON: Yes and of course the interested parties' position of course is open on this, I don't think there's any misunderstanding.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman what I then will do if I will - if my learned friend has no objection, I will present him with that as well. I will provide you with a typed document referring to the exact pages and under specific four headings that I have referred you to now, which pages I would want to rely on eventually in argument. I will present that to you tomorrow for this purpose.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes we'll deal with that.
MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you.
CHAIRPERSON: I think let's try and get the testimony done.
MR WAGENER: Sorry may I come in at this moment in time?
MR WAGENER: While we're dealing with this document handed up by Mr du Plessis, may I request him to indicate who is the author of all the notes that we find on this document on many places like for instance I see here on page 271 someone wrote
"Steyn is an idiot"
Now who would that be, who wrote this?
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I don't know, certainly not me. Maybe Mr Bellingan can give me instructions on it.
Mr Chairman, Mr Bellingan informs me that some of the notes he hasn't gone through them, obviously it could have been written by him but this is a record of the inquest that was used by previous counsel at the trial so lots of people have made notes. It was too difficult to take the notes out Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Wagener, if it helps we certainly don't regard it as part of the record.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright then Mr Chairman if you'll just bear with me please?
Mr Bellingan, on page 270 there's reference that Mr Steyn had a discussion with Advocate Voleerus, do you know anything about that? Did you have a discussion with Mr Steyn about that?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Potter had a meeting with?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Bellingan, it's evidence of Mr Potter that he had a meeting with Mr Voleerus and he had discussed this with Mr Voleerus and he also had a similar discussion with Mr Steyn about this. Now the only question I'm asking is did Mr Steyn or Mr Potter ever speak to you about this, told you about this?
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman not until - somewhere along the line I heard about it but I don't think either Mr Potter or in fact I'm certain Mr Potter didn't mention that to me.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, how does that Mr Bellingan fit in with your evidence pertaining to the cover up that you have testified about?
MR BELLINGAN: I was confident that Advocate Voleerus would be assisting us so whoever spoke to him, it was - I didn't have a perception that that was a problem.
MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr Bellingan, the threats that your wife Janine had made to you would you regard those threats along the same lines as Mr Potter's evidence?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes I think Mr Potter had it pretty much right, there was such matters between myself and my wife Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright now Mr Bellingan, Mrs Smith's evidence, Mrs Smith lived on a cottage on your property, is that correct, the same property?
MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: And did you ever know of the discussions Mrs Smith had with your wife Janine in respect of the Numsa incident and your actions?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I was aware after Lorna Smith moved out that she was going to be returning certain documentation to Janine, I was aware of that. In fact I did make a point of trying to look for that documentation. Lorna had for one or other reason decided to return that to Janine, that was via the telephone tap I'd heard that.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if you'd just bear with me please?
Mr Bellingan on page 376 there's reference by Mr Steyn about a parking ticket and then he says there right at the bottom he says:
"Is it correct that you also made enquiries by friends of Mr Bellingan about parking tickets?"
"Yes that's correct. At the time Lieutenant Colonel Els, it was unsuccessful"
and it says ...[inaudible] provided by Els, a receipt in reference to that ticket?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Was this receipt or the parking ticket ever dealt with in evidence at the trial?
MR BELLINGAN: Nothing like that was ever handed in at the inquest or the trial Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: And the parking tickets, what did you do with the parking tickets - parking ticket or tickets - can you just elaborate on that when you went back to Jan Smuts Airport after the murder?
MR BELLINGAN: They were left in my vehicle, Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: How many were there?
MR BELLINGAN: I had made the mistake and left both in my vehicle Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: And who would have come into possession of those tickets?
MR BELLINGAN: Either myself or my colleagues Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Anybody specific of your colleagues?
MR BELLINGAN: The person who drove the vehicle out, Mr Els who they are referring to here and who had in fact according to this over here given the investigating officer the receipt.
I don't recall what happened to the other parking ticket referring to the shorter space of time.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright and then Mr Bellingan on page 382 to 383, Mr Steyn gave evidence about the two hairs which you have testified about previously, the red hair and the other hair and the tampering with the evidence. Did you know of the tampering of the evidence before the inquest?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes I did Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: And why didn't you testify anything about it?
MR BELLINGAN: That would have defeated the whole object of the cover up Mr Chairman. One can also note from the questions asked by my own attorney who had agreed to represent me at short notice over there that I didn't want anyone to be left with the impression that there was some type of political motive pertaining to this matter. If one reads between the lines of what my own attorney's asking one can get that impression as well.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright Mr Bellingan - Mr Chairman, there are no further references, I'll provide you with the other references pertaining to some of these issues.
Mr Bellingan would you or could you elaborate on the question if there was any other alternative for you in this situation you found yourself in apart from killing your wife. What was your view and specifically your subjective view regarding a possible alternative?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman as from what I understood there was no alternative for me. There were no mechanisms, it was in some respects analogous to the situation where decisions had to be taken about for example the South African Council of churches where they were more or less in an untouchable position. The repercussions of trying to detain Janine, arrest her, charge her under the Official Secrets Act, that would have just been absurd. Trying to put pressure on her would have had exactly the opposite effect. Trying to get anyone else to convince Janine, Mr Chairman, was not an option. There was nothing else that I could do Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Bellingan and what was your belief of the possibility that she would at some stage or another make the information that she had public?
MR BELLINGAN: It was most definitely going to happen Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: And did you belief that your action was directed against the liberation movement?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I would like to apologise first and foremost to Janine's family. I know what this did to them. I would like to apologise for other activities which I was involved in and also for the activities of which I had knowledge and which I did nothing about. I feel the burden Mr Chairman of the secrets, I feel the burden of the complicity. I have had a lot of time on my own to deal with my own guilt about this Mr Chairman and I deeply regret it, I deeply regret having murdered my wife.
I would also like to say Mr Chairman that I hope if there is anything which, detail which I've neglected to mention now that if you would bear with me if I mention it under cross-examination or so on. I really don't remember if I've said everything but perhaps there may be something else that comes out under cross-examination. That is all and I can say thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Bellingan. Mr du Plessis, thank you very much. We intend to take the tea adjournment at this stage. We had thought that it would be expedient for the family of the deceased to start of the questioning and for Numsa to follow and for the rest of the interested parties and for Mr Chaskalson unfortunately to be at the end of the line but we'll adjourn at this stage for 15 minutes.
CHAIRPERSON: You are reminded that you are still under oath?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, we have so many versions from you on these events that I'd like to make sure at the outset that I understand which version it is that you want this application to be judged on. I understand that you disavow the annexure to the first amnesty application?
MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: That annexure is indeed a pack of lies, is that correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Not necessarily Mr Chairman, it's just not my document.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, it's either true or not. You've read that annexure is it true or is it not true, whether it's your document or not?
MR BELLINGAN: It's not my document Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, that's not the question. Is that document a true statement of fact or is it untrue?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, a huge amount from my quick glancing through that document is true but it is certainly not got anything to do with my amnesty application before this Committee here today.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan ...[intervention]
MR BELLINGAN: It's got nothing at all to do with my amnesty application before this Committee over here, this week.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, that's not the question and you're confined in your answers to the questions that I put to you, do you understand that?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes I do Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: The document is a pack of lies if you are to be believed, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: That's not even close to what I've said to you Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: It is hugely different from the version that you've presented today.
MR BELLINGAN: It does vary Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Significantly so in respect of the murder of Janine it varies. You could never honestly have given that version?
MR BELLINGAN: Before this Committee definitely not Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Anywhere Mr Bellingan.
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I've applied for amnesty for perjury to say that I would not never give a false version anywhere would be grossly inaccurate.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, listen to the question. You could never honestly have given that version?
MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman in respect of the murder of Janine.
MR TRENGOVE: Whose document is it?
MR BELLINGAN: I have no idea who typed that document, it is most certainly not my document.
MR TRENGOVE: Who is the author of the document whoever the typist might have been?
MR BELLINGAN: It may have been a document which was part of the discussions I had with certain members of the TRC and or the Dr D'Oliveira's unit.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, documents aren't part of discussions. Who is the author of the document.
MR BELLINGAN: As I said Mr Chairman, that is not my document.
MR TRENGOVE: That's not the question, I'm asking you who is the author of it?
MR BELLINGAN: In respect of the part relating to the murder of Janine, the author of that document is - I may have been partially responsible for some of that information being told to some of the people that have come to see me.
MR TRENGOVE: Can't you just give a straight answer? Who is the author of the document?
MR BELLINGAN: In respect of who typed it?
MR TRENGOVE: No and I made that clear.
CHAIRPERSON: No, it shouldn't be so difficult to understand the question. Can you assist, do you know who prepared the document, who is the author?
MR BELLINGAN: I don't know who prepared the document Mr Chairman but I have an idea that a lot of the notes that I've given to people could have led to somebody typing such a document.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, is that your best answer? I asked you who the author is and you say that some of the notes that you've given to some unidentified people could have formed part of it. Can't you just give a straight answer?
MR BELLINGAN: That is my best answer Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You don't know who the author is.
MR BELLINGAN: It's not what I said Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Well who is the author?
MR BELLINGAN: As I said Mr Chairman, that was my best answer.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, who was the author?
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, with all due respect to Mr Trengove, the answer Mr Bellingan gave was that it may have been part of documents or discussions he had with Mr D'Oliveira and I think, I'm not sure if he said Mr Kelber.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja or the TRC and I think Mr Trengove is trying to get clarity on this whether he can be more specific.
MR DU PLESSIS: Correct, but with respect Mr Chairman, it is a document that is a typed document. Now is the question did Mr Bellingan type this document originally, was he the author of the document in the sense of having written it down, there are all sorts of permutations to this.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's none of that, it's none of those questions. It's an awkward question, it's a very simple too I believe, the question is can he say who the author of the document was, perhaps he can try and do that I mean if he can assist us, if he doesn't know, he doesn't know.
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman my problem is one that I've taken up with the TRC when they came to see me last Thursday. I cannot for the life of me see how that document ended up in the bundle. I see it as an act of bad faith. There is no possible way that can be construed as being an amnesty application from myself.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes, no, no I don't want to interrupt you unnecessarily but I'm quite sure Mr Trengove will develop this point but at this stage I think it's a very simple question. If you can assist, who is the author of the document?
MR BELLINGAN: As I say Mr Chairman, I may have been responsible for the ideas that emanate in the document.
MR TRENGOVE: Anything is possible, Mr Bellingan and I'd just like facts, not speculation. Do you know who the author of the document is?
MR BELLINGAN: If it pleases Advocate Trengove let's call it myself as he termed it earlier the drawer or something of that nature.
MR TRENGOVE: You were the author of the document? Is that correct?
MR BELLINGAN: For the sake of argument Mr Chairman, yes.
MR TRENGOVE: No we're not arguing we're asking you to give evidence of facts under oath. It's not a debating point Mr Bellingan.
MR BELLINGAN: I don't know Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You don't know what?
MR BELLINGAN: I don't know for sure to say under oath that I'm the author of that document. I can't say that under oath.
MR TRENGOVE: Oh I see so you might have been the author but you just don't know.
MR BELLINGAN: I may have been responsible for the majority of the ideas contained in there Mr Chairman, I don't know that document, I've seen it for the first time recently.
MR TRENGOVE: I'm not asking you who the source of the information was, I'm trying to find out whether you know who the author was and you simply have - it's a simple question, it can either be yes or no? You either know or you don't?
MR BELLINGAN: As I say Mr Chairman, I am most likely responsible for the greater portion of the ideas in there, if not all of them.
MR TRENGOVE: Including the account of the murder.
MR BELLINGAN: Including the account of the murder Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: The one which is a pack of lies?
MR BELLINGAN: The one which is a pack of lies Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Why did you lie in your application to the Amnesty Committee?
MR DU PLESSIS: No Mr Chairman, with respect, the - with respect Mr Trengove if you'll just - Mr Chairman, if you'll bear with me?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes you want to object?
MR DU PLESSIS: It is not and the evidence was clear in respect of that, it is not his amnesty application before this Committee. He hasn't signed that document and the typed document he had never seen before last week so there's not an amnesty application or part of an amnesty application that he lodged, that was his evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes, no that is so. Mr Trengove?
MR TRENGOVE: Why did you lie in the document?
MR BELLINGAN: I don't know the document Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You were the author of it Mr Bellingan, why did you lie when you composed it?
MR BELLINGAN: I don't think I did compose the document Mr Chairman, I think I was responsible for the great proportion of ideas in there and I've ...[intervention]
MR BELLINGAN: That was not my answer.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, you have to answer the question.
MR BELLINGAN: If I could just ask the question please?
MR TRENGOVE: We've made it quite clear that a distinction between the source of the information and the author of the document and you've identified yourself as the author, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: If I can just finish my answer to the question?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes and then you deal with that question as well.
MR BELLINGAN: Thank you Mr Chairman. The question was to what would have motivated me as I understood it, to lie to somebody who came to visit me and asked me questions.
MR TRENGOVE: No that was not the question.
CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Trengove, repeat the question. Listen very carefully.
MR TRENGOVE: Why did you lie in the document.
MR BELLINGAN: I don't know the document Mr Chairman, I don't mind saying it again.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, you were the author of the document, somebody else might have typed it but you were it's author and you lied in it, I'm asking why?
MR BELLINGAN: In respect of the murder application Mr Chairman, I have had numerous dealings with various forums and people, I do not know who I could trust, I was under absolutely no obligation to tell anybody the truth about it, in fact quite the opposite Mr Chairman. The people from the TRC are strangers from me, the people from Dr d'Oliveira's office that came to see me are strangers to me, the people from the South African Police that came to see me are strangers to me. I don't know what their political agenda is Mr Chairman, I don't know if they're working for the old guard, I don't know what exactly motivates them to do the work that they're doing and what motivates them to come and ask me questions. Sitting in a maximum prison I also have been in need of information. Now in order to get information, in order to get some type of process going where I could find out exactly where I stand, it was necessary and also further to discussions that I had, confidential discussions, with certain advocates, upon advice it was necessary not to tell the truth to people.
MR TRENGOVE: That is a non-answer Mr Bellingan. Can I repeat it, why did you lie in the document.
MR BELLINGAN: I also don't mind repeating my answer Mr Chairman but ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: ...[inaudible] the question.
MR BELLINGAN: ...[inaudible] the document and secondly I've explained that I was under no obligation to tell anybody the truth and I did not tell the entire truth to people, in fact quite the opposite as I've said until such time as I know who I'm dealing with, what their motive is, what their background is which is not something you get overnight Mr Chairman from one or two visits from people. Some of Mr Shelberg's colleagues from the TRC have come to see me about whom I know nothing. Mr Shelberg has been to see me many, many times, I've developed a rapport with him. Some of his colleagues had even come to see me behind his back. I don't know what their motive is, I don't know what their political agenda is. I have also seen other people who I'm very unsure about, in fact quite the opposite, I don't trust people any more Mr Chairman and as I say I was absolutely under no obligation to at some point come clean with this until such time as I had spoken and got legal advice about with attorneys whom I trusted. That is the position Mr Chairman and I repeat I don't know that document, it is not part of my amnesty application.
MR TRENGOVE: What harm would it have done to tell them the truth?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman there already has been one attempt on my life while I was in prison. To suddenly start opening up when I've got specific instructions not to cooperate with the Truth Commission, not to tell the truth. When I've perjured myself, when I've lied, when I've been involved in operations Mr Chairman which go right up to the highest level of the government of this country, would I be such a fool to just open up to each and every person. They could have been journalists for all I know Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan that answer can't possibly be true. This document does not in any way avoid implicating people. On the contrary, it attaches a list of people implicated and they include all the people you've implicated in your evidence, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: My answer was true Mr Chairman to you. Secondly in respect of the murder could Mr Trengove just mention the names to me because to refresh my memory? I haven't got the document in front of me?
MR TRENGOVE: According to you the truth is that you committed the murder on your own and nobody else assisted you, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: That is my evidence before this Committee Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: So why not tell that truth in this document?
MR BELLINGAN: I had absolutely no intention of telling the truth...[intervention]
MR BELLINGAN: About sensitive operations to people who came to see Mr Chairman until such time as I had proper legal advice and knew where I stand in respect of the matter.
CHAIRPERSON: If you'd - give me a short answer, I don't intend to interrupt you.
MR BELLINGAN: Perhaps if I could also just find the reference to the names regarding the murder which the ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: Have a look at the amnesty application, page 8? That is the annexure we're talking about, is that correct? The document of which you were the author not the typist.
MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And turn to page 14, that's another annexure. Were you the author of that annexure?
MR BELLINGAN: I may have been the author of this document. Is it an annexure in the sense that it's attached to these documents here? It's an annexure in any other sense Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: It's a attached to your amnesty application.
MR DU PLESSIS: With respect Mr Chairman, we see that from the bundle but there's no indication that that document when it was handed to the TRC was attached ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: No it's not necessary to get into that debate and Mr Bellingan as well. An annexure in the sense of being in this bundle here. We understand your position, you say this never formed part of the application that you submitted to the amnesty committee, do you understand that?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, I understand that. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: So deal with it on that basis.
MR TRENGOVE: Were you the author of the annexure that commences at page 14?
MR BELLINGAN: I may have been Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Were you the author of the annexure that commences at page 16?
MR BELLINGAN: It seems very likely that I was Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Were you the author of the annexure that commences at page 21?
MR BELLINGAN: I was most likely responsible for this as well Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: The list implicating policemen and colleagues of every variety.
MR BELLINGAN: Except in respect of number 22 Mr Chairman which is the murder.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes and that is your evidence today.
MR BELLINGAN: In actual fact what the advocate said is not correct because the advocate said, put to me that I'd implicated people over there and I'd mentioned officers names and number 22 is the only one where there's no officers' names mentioned.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes that's obvious, yes Mr Bellingan, telling them the truth wouldn't have implicated any more people, correct? On your version, if you're to be believed.
MR BELLINGAN: I'm not quite sure the "them" that it is referring to but I presume he means the people who ultimately typed this document and I believe that that would have been injurious to myself.
MR TRENGOVE: No. Mr Bellingan, telling the truth in this document about the murder wouldn't have implicated any more people than you had implicated already, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman at least people would have been more at ease, firstly and secondly I may have been in a better position to get information back from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
MR TRENGOVE: Why don't you just answer the question?
MR BELLINGAN: Please repeat the question?
MR TRENGOVE: Telling the truth as you would have it about the murder in this document wouldn't have implicated anybody you hadn't already implicated?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: To whom - do you have any idea who might have typed this document, to whom did you give this statement that you've prepared?
MR BELLINGAN: I've got no idea who typed this document Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: To whom did you give the statement of which you had been the author?
MR BELLINGAN: This seems to be a compilation Mr Chairman of perhaps various conversations, perhaps it was one conversation. Much of this is actually in my amnesty application Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, just answer the question. We've established - go to page 8. We've established that you were the author but not the typist of that document correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: To whom did you give the original document that you had prepared?
MR BELLINGAN: I cannot recall Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Who assisted you in the preparation of your first amnesty application?
MR BELLINGAN: Nobody whatsoever Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Who completed your first amnesty application, whose handwriting is it we see from page 1?
MR BELLINGAN: That is my handwriting Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Whose oath is it that appears at page 7?
MR BELLINGAN: That is mine Mr Chairman - sorry the Commissioner of Oaths is a person by the name of Johnson, he works for Correctional Services ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, I didn't ask what the Commissioner's name was, I said whose oath was it?
MR TRENGOVE: I don't know whether you understand what oath means? Do you?
MR BELLINGAN: The advocate referred to page 7 Mr Chairman, on page 7 there's no signature from me it's a signature of Mr Johnson from Correctional Services. On page 6 ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: No there's a statement at the top of the page that the declaration was duly sworn. I'm asking you whose oath is referred to on that page?
MR BELLINGAN: That is my oath Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: What do you say which document or documents comprised your first amnesty application?
MR BELLINGAN: My first amnesty application was a skeleton application Mr Chairman, comprising pages - comprising the pro-forma form which is titled "Application for Amnesty in terms of Section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995". It in itself is titled "Annexure - Form 1" and it runs to page 7, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: That and that alone?
MR BELLINGAN: That is my amnesty application as agreed between myself and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
MR TRENGOVE: Just answer the question. That and that alone?
MR BELLINGAN: That and that alone Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: No document other than pages 1 to 7?
MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And all the handwriting on this document is yours?
MR BELLINGAN: That is correct Mr Chairman, other than page 7.
MR TRENGOVE: Then could you please tell us, on page 5 paragraph 11(b), could you read the answer to that question?
MR BELLINGAN: I write there: "Refer to annexure", Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes and what was that Mr Bellingan?
MR BELLINGAN: That is the annexure which would have filled out the meat of the skeleton application.
MR TRENGOVE: It was intended ...[intervention]
MR BELLINGAN: After consultation with an attorney.
MR TRENGOVE: This document was intended to have an annexure attached to it?
MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And that was the purpose for which you gave the information?
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, that is not true.
MR TRENGOVE: And that was the purpose for which you prepared the statement at page 8?
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, that is not so.
MR TRENGOVE: What was the purpose for which you prepared that statement?
MR BELLINGAN: As I've explained Mr Chairman, I needed information back from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I needed to know also who I could trust. It was a start of a process or it was during a process of discussions with various people Mr Chairman. The exact circumstances I cannot remember.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, why don't you answer the question? What was the purpose of the statement?
MR BELLINGAN: It was most definitely not to be submitted as an annexure to my amnesty application Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Why don't you just answer the question?
MR BELLINGAN: I don't remember exactly Mr Chairman but I think I've covered it already.
MR TRENGOVE: No you haven't Mr Bellingan and if you have, do it again.
MR BELLINGAN: Let me repeat it then Mr Chairman ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: And remember the question is, what was the purpose of the statement which commences at page 8?
MR BELLINGAN: It was most likely in response to questions that had been put to me by people from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall all of them Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: The person that I've seen most and with whom I built up - had built up a rapport is Mr Shelberg who is sitting over there.
MR TRENGOVE: No, that's not the question. One name of one person to whom you gave this statement?
MR BELLINGAN: No, I don't recall Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Did you keep the original statement that you had prepared?
MR BELLINGAN: I do not recall that there was one specific statement Mr Chairman, I don't recall much about that. My authorship of the document I don't recall much about that so to refer to the statement I can't be specific over there but I don't have anything like that in my possession at all.
MR TRENGOVE: When did your present attorney start to represent you?
MR BELLINGAN: It was around April or May 1997.
MR TRENGOVE: Turn to the second amnesty application in that bundle at page 23. This is the application on which you want to be judged, is that correct?
MR BELLINGAN: This is my application before the Amnesty Committee, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Just answer the question. This is the application on wish you wished to be judged?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: It was prepared by your current attorney and advocate, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: On your instructions?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: The oath at the end of the statement is - at the end of the application at page 476 is yours?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And you swore then that the application was true, do you still confirm that that is so?
MR BELLINGAN: Aside from minor changes here and there due to typing etcetera, etcetera, Mr Chairman. I confirm it is true.
MR TRENGOVE: Forget the typing errors for the moment. Are the facts in this document true?
MR BELLINGAN: As far as my memory serves me, yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Did you when you instructed your current attorneys and advocate, give them a copy of the original statement? That's the statement at page 8 or any part of it to instruct them?
MR BELLINGAN: I gave my attorneys a pile of documentation Mr Chairman, including stuff that I had given to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, that is correct and it is in fact contained in - recognise a lot of it, yes.
MR TRENGOVE: There's a great deal of similarity in parts between the two sets of facts is that correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: For instance the description of the Numsa frauds has been repeated verbatim?
MR BELLINGAN: It's highly likely Mr Chairman, I have not compared but it's likely.
MR TRENGOVE: So that the document that you gave your lawyers would have included it if not the original statement that you had prepared then at least the information on which it was based?
MR BELLINGAN: There was no original statement Mr Chairman, it would have been a series of written things by myself and a lot of that would have gone to the attorneys for them to draw up this document which is my amnesty application or the annexure referred to in.
MR TRENGOVE: And you say that when your original, the first amnesty application was submitted, the intention was later to attack an annexure to it?
MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: When was the annexure attached to it and what annexure was attached to it?
MR BELLINGAN: It was done - the annexure was sent by the Attorneys Strydom, Britz, whatever the date may have been I'm not sure when it was ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: What annexure are you talking about?
MR DU PLESSIS: Can we just make sure Mr Trengove, Mr Chairman if Mr Trengove is speaking of the schedule that first formal document or is he speaking of the application that Mr Britz and I were responsible for?
CHAIRPERSON: No, I understand him to refer to that first annexure.
MR DU PLESSIS: Through the first one, that's how I understood it too.
MR TRENGOVE: I think I said so.
MR DU PLESSIS: I just think Mr Bellingan misunderstood you Mr Trengove.
MR BELLINGAN: I can't remember when it was finalised Mr Chairman but just as soon as they finalised it they brought it through for me to sign who did affirm, people from Mr Britz's office.
MR TRENGOVE: And did you sign it?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman I did.
MR TRENGOVE: And where is it today?
MR BELLINGAN: It's before the Amnesty Committee Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Could you identify the document in that bundle?
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I have to come in here ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: My learned friend doesn't have to come in, if there's any misunderstanding he can clarify it in reply.
MR DU PLESSIS: Well if my client is testifying that the first application and that annexure which wasn't signed by him, if he's testifying that I - that that was in possession of my attorney or I had seen it, then I'll have to ask for an adjournment, Mr Chairman. My client clearly misunderstands the question, he is testifying about the second application. If he is saying the first application then I must ask for an adjournment Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Well let's hear, let him deal with it, we'll see if there's a misunderstanding. Just be patient Mr du Plessis, please.
MR BELLINGAN: 26 November 1997, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Where are you reading from?
MR BELLINGAN: From page 475 of ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: That's the second amnesty application, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: This is the body of my amnesty application in response to my skeleton application that was submitted.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan...[intervention]
MR BELLINGAN: It's not a second application as such Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Look at page 23. There's been no misunderstanding about this whatsoever. Look at page 23.
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And compare it with page 1. Those are two amnesty applications that we have been consistently referring to as the first and the second amnesty application, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: That is not my error Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: This is one and the same amnesty application.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Bellingan, it might assist if you confine yourself to the question and try and answer it. Mr Trengove is asking you to confirm whether the document which starts on page 1, paginated page 1 of this pile of documents that are before us, is understood to be your first amnesty application.
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And the document which starts on page 23 in that bundle is understood to be your second amnesty application?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, that is how I understood it and that is why I'm saying that that is not the case.
CHAIRPERSON: No, no just for the purposes of your testimony here?
MR TRENGOVE: And if you refer back to what I have called the first amnesty application, page 5, paragraph 11(b) it says
"Refer to annexure"
What I want to know from you is whether that annexure has ever been prepared and annexed to this document?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman it is the annexures sent in by Strydom Britz Attorneys.
MR TRENGOVE: You mean the document I have called the second amnesty application?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You have supplemented your second amnesty application or your attorneys have done so on your behalf and I want to refer you to those documents and ask you whether they - whether it is correct that they must be taken to have supplemented your application and to form part of the case on which you wish to be judged. Refer to the applicant's bundle 3.1, page 17. That is a letter from the Commission to your current attorney, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: One of the things it does or what it does is to ask for further information, do you see that?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: The reply to that letter is at page 19?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Can we accept that that reply was prepared on your instructions, on the information that you gave your attorneys.
MR BELLINGAN: It seems to be accurate Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: So that it forms part of the case on which you wish to be judged?
MR BELLINGAN: I would prefer to read it first Mr Chairman but for the sake of argument let me say ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: No, no, no Mr Bellingan, I don't know why you would imagine that evidence under oath is a debate? It's not an argument.
MR BELLINGAN: Perhaps I'm just being pedantic Mr Chairman but I haven't actually read this document yet.
MR TRENGOVE: Why don't you do so now?
MR BELLINGAN: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you read the document which appears at paginated page 19 of Volume 3.1?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: And what is your response to the question?
MR BELLINGAN: I agree with it Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And then further questions were asked of you, you will see firstly at page 8 of the same bundle there is a letter of the Commission of the 26th November asking further questions and to those questions yet further questions were added at the pre-trial conference on the 4th December, you'll see the minute of that conference commences at page 2 but if you turn to page 7 in paragraph 9 you will see further questions were asked. The reply to those questions came by way of Exhibit A faxed to us last Friday the 22nd January. Would you look at Exhibit A and confirm that that is the reply emanating from your side?
Mr Bellingan, I don't think you need to have any concerns in this regard, you counsel when he handed it in as an exhibit explained that it was the reply of your side, do you remember that?
MR BELLINGAN: Once again Mr Chairman, I haven't seen it before.
MR TRENGOVE: Haven't seen the document before?
MR BELLINGAN: Not this document no.
MR TRENGOVE: I see. Was it not prepared in consultation with you last week?
MR BELLINGAN: I'm quite sure it must have been Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Did your lawyers consult with you last week?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Did they raise all these TRC questions with you?
MR BELLINGAN: They actually gave me a - ja they did raise the questions Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And did you give them the answers to those questions?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Well, would you check the document to satisfy yourself that we can rely on the document that your advocate and attorney have given us as being your answers?
MR TRENGOVE: Yes by all means.
MR DU PLESSIS: Could I perhaps ask for a short adjournment? There's a specific reason therefore.
CHAIRPERSON: Personal to yourself.
MR DU PLESSIS: To myself and I think under the circumstances and I have to phone my attorney Mr Britz to discuss the specific situation with him which has arisen now Mr Chairman and which I feel perhaps before the matter goes further that I have to raise with him and discuss with him.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. How far are you with the reading there Mr Bellingan, how far are you there?
MR BELLINGAN: I'm nearly finished Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Otherwise I will take it up in lunchtime Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright, let's do that, let's try and keep the ...[intervention]
MR BELLINGAN: From my side I don't have a problem, I'm nearly finished.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright, okay, I don't want to interrupt you, finish?
MR TRENGOVE: Yes Mr Bellingan, you've read the document now?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes I've read the document Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And does it represent your answers to those questions?
MR BELLINGAN: I haven't got the questions in front of me so here and there I'm a little confused as to what exactly was meant and perhaps the wording may differ slightly but in essence yes, I'm happy with it.
MR TRENGOVE: There's not inaccuracy in the facts in that document?
MR BELLINGAN: In paragraph 4 on page 4 I'm not too sure what I'm by as far as denial of any involvement, there seem to be many ranging from leader to my colleagues, I don't have the question in front of me but as for the rest it's a bit overstated here and there but - well in one place in particular but I'm happy with the facts.
MR TRENGOVE: What is the particular place where it's overstated?
MR BELLINGAN: Oh ja, that is the clandestine meeting was - that's a bit overstated. It was clandestine but it's a bit overstated.
MR TRENGOVE: What meeting does that refer to?
MR BELLINGAN: With Colonel Oosthuizen.
MR TRENGOVE: Clandestine meeting with your boss?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Now you know that this application, the essence of this application turns on the object with which you murdered your wife, that's what it's all about, isn't it?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: I'd like to capture the essence of your case in that regard without doing injustice to the detail of it and I tried to reduce it to three propositions and I'd like to ask you whether those propositions correctly reflect the essence of that.
The first is that you say you killed for your country, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.
MR TRENGOVE: You killed out of sheer patriosm, saying the same thing in different words?
MR BELLINGAN: Not my words but I think it would be fair to argue that.
MR TRENGOVE: You killed because your wife was a threat, that stood to destroy your unit, the Security Branch, the government and the peaceful transition to democracy?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Secondly you killed for your country because you thought it was your duty to do so?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You had no choice?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Thirdly, in doing so you were not motivated and I quote you "by some or other irrelevant personal factor" Correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: In fact if this answer to the questions that you've just led is to be believed you killed your wife despite the fact that your relationship with her at the time was quote "very good." Correct?
MR BELLINGAN: That is true Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Was it hard for you to kill your wife with whom you had a very good relationship?
MR BELLINGAN: The decision was a difficult one to make Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Did you love your wife?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You loved your wife, you had a very good relationship with her but you killed her out of sheer sense of duty?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You didn't just kill her, you butchered her?
MR BELLINGAN: I murdered my wife Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You butchered her Mr Bellingan, you smashed her skull?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: When she woke up and put up resistance you put your knee on her abdomen to pin her down and smashed her skull again, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman. She did wake up in other words my first blow that I struck was - did not do the job and I had to strike two more blows in quick succession.
MR TRENGOVE: Why was her abdomen severely bruised?
MR BELLINGAN: I understand Mr Chairman from the evidence of the pathologist or whoever gave evidence that it was something to do with the rigor mortis or something like that. Apparently it's something that happens.
MR TRENGOVE: After smashing her skull again you strangled her?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: In the line of duty?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You were just doing your job?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Have a look at bundle B5, page 59, that's our bundle of documents, B5, that's the bundle that we gave you yesterday.
CHAIRPERSON: What is the page Mr Trengove?
MR TRENGOVE: 59 Mr Chairman. You'll see that pages 59, 60 and 61 depict the corpse of your wife in the murder scene?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: The wall and the ceiling were splattered with blood?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Your wife's body was severely mutilated?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You did that while your children lay asleep in the room next door?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You left her corpse in that condition well knowing that they would wake up the following morning, seek out their mother for warmth and comfort and find her butchered body?
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, the maid Lydia Kubeka always came in before the children woke up.
MR TRENGOVE: It didn't happen that morning. It didn't happen that morning Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And it was inevitable whoever woke first that the children would be confronted by the mutilated corpse of their mother?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And you did that Mr Bellingan because it was your job?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: The explanation that you give for the murder today was first given to anybody in your second amnesty application? Correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: It was not a version that you had previously given to anybody?
MR BELLINGAN: I only told the truth before this Commission for the first time Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Just answer the question. It is not a version, an explanation that you had given to anybody before that application was filed.
MR BELLINGAN: I wouldn't put it like that Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Well why don't you just answer the question?
Did you advance this explanation to anybody before you did so in your second amnesty application?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman it wasn't necessary because people knew that I killed my wife.
MR TRENGOVE: Just answer the question.
MR TRENGOVE: You did not give this explanation to anybody before you gave it in your second amnesty application, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: In my amnesty application, yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan the only reason you murdered the wife - your wife and the mother of your children and the only reason you thought it was your duty to do so was and I quote that "you were not a hundred percent certain that she would not in future divulge the information she had obtained" is that correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman but at the same time I was certain that she would.
MR TRENGOVE: No, no you don't seem to understand, one can't get too contradictory and mutually exclusive answers at the same time. I know that you would want to but you can't.
MR BELLINGAN: Could the advocate just repeat the original question, those exact words I didn't quite get them.
MR TRENGOVE: Well let me simply quote from Exhibit A, paragraph 6 and in fairness to you let me first go back to the question which precipitated paragraph 6. Could you go to bundle 3.1, Mr Bellingan go to bundle 3.1, page 8, you'll see that's the TRC letter of the 26th November.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Trengove have you ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: Sorry, it's page 9 of the bundle.
MR TRENGOVE: I had two page numbers but the correct one is page 9. That's the TRC letter of the 26th November last year, it asks a series of questions, if you could turn to page 11 you'll see there's a paragraph 6 and it says "how would he describe his personal relationship with his wife prior to the murder, do you see that?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman I do.
MR TRENGOVE: And then in Exhibit A the answer came at page 4 of Exhibit A of paragraph 6. Could you read that paragraph into the record please?
MR BELLINGAN: "Immediately prior to the murder my personal relationship with Janine was very good. We had plans to buy a home with two studies so that we would be out of each other's hair. Janine seemed content with me and was also happy at work. She was about to be promoted. However, she had a morbid dislike of my work and I was not a hundred percent certain that she would not in future divulge the information she had obtained."
MR TRENGOVE: Yes, so what you're saying there is simply that there was some risk that she might in future divulge the information?
MR BELLINGAN: She was going to divulge the information Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan just answer the question. What this paragraph tells us is that you believed at the time that there was some risk that she might at some time in the future divulge that information?
MR BELLINGAN: What I'm saying over here Mr Chairman and what I believe these words to say is that I needed a hundred percent certainty that she would not divulge information that she had, I did not have that certainty.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes precisely because there was some risk.
MR BELLINGAN: There was a huge risk Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: No. All this says is that you couldn't be absolutely sure that she might not at some future date divulge that information. This is what this document tells us and that is the statement that you confirmed a few minutes ago.
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Trengove may read it like that but Mr Chairman, I certainly don't.
MR TRENGOVE: That - what that statement does not say is "I was certain that she was going to divulge that information."
On the contrary it says "I didn't believe that she would do so but I couldn't be a hundred percent sure."
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, this statement must be taken in the context of my description of my relationship with Janine which is what the question asks about. It says how would I describe my personal relationship with Janine. My relationship was good but at the time she made the phone call it became clear to me that she was going to divulge the information so that is, my perspective was I needed to be one hundred percent certain that she would not do that. The final act that sealed it for me was knowing that Janine was in fact going to do that so in terms of my relationship with Janine I did not have that certainty Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes, that's the only reason you advance in this document. All you say here is "I couldn't be a hundred percent certain and that's why I killed her" okay? Correct Mr Bellingan?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: When did you decide to murder her?
MR BELLINGAN: I decided to murder Janine in Durban Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: On the 19th September.
MR TRENGOVE: That's the Thursday?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Why did you take the decision - you've described broad - please don't repeat why you murdered her, but why was the decision taken on that day, what was it that made you decide on that day, "this is it, I'm going to murder her."
MR BELLINGAN: The phone call from my sister, Judy White, Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: She asked me if I was going to leave the police force, she said that Janine was going to make certain disclosures.
MR TRENGOVE: Janine was going to make certain disclosures, is that what she said?
MR BELLINGAN: No, she was a bit more specific than that Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes, what did she say?
MR BELLINGAN: She said to me that Janine would sink the whole rotten Security Branch.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes? By making disclosures?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: What disclosures, did she tell you?
MR BELLINGAN: Judy White did not specify Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: I see and you say that was when you decided to murder your wife on the Thursday, is that correct?
MR BELLINGAN: That was when I decided to murder Janine on the Friday night Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Oh on the Friday night.
MR BELLINGAN: I decided on the Thursday to murder Janine on the Friday night.
MR TRENGOVE: We're at cross purposes. The decision was taken on the Thursday?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And the decision was taken because of the call from Judy?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, amongst other reasons.
MR TRENGOVE: But that call was made on Friday, you told us so yesterday?
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, I phoned Janine on the Friday. I phoned Janine on the Friday and I spoke to Janine to see if there is any possibility that something she says could get me to change my mind aside from the other reasons and that was essentially what my objective was in phoning Janine on the Friday Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, we can check the record but we'll leave it at that. The evidence on which you took your decision to murder your wife, if I understand you correctly, really comprised four pieces of evidence and I'd like to tell you what they were, to make sure that my understanding of your evidence is correct. The first was the taped conversations in which she had leaked information about operations liaison and the Midrand operation, to Vrye Weekblad which they'd exposed.
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I don't know if it was leaked to Vrye Weekblad, I heard on the tapes that Janine was talking about those things, they were exposed thereafter so I draw a direct connection with the exposure in the Vrye Weekblad but I don't know that Janine was talking to anyone specifically from the Vrye Weekblad.
MR TRENGOVE: I see, did the exposure only come after the murder?
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, it was before the murder.
MR TRENGOVE: So by the time you took the decision you had heard those conversations and there had been a Vrye Weekblad exposure.
MR BELLINGAN: Of the liaison operation Mr Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, which must have made it plain to you that Janine was the source of the exposure?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: So, can I start again? The first piece of evidence which underlay your decision to murder was the taped conversations in which she'd leaked information about those operations to Vrye Weekblad. By now you knew that the leak had been to Vrye Weekblad?
MR BELLINGAN: No, that's not correct Mr Chairman. There had been a series of events in particular the problem concerning Janine discussing Operation WH10, the stealing of cheques and our operational use of the cheques, Mr Chairman. It was quite plain to me by then that Janine had - was not going to keep quite about that, she was going to talk about that.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, I've told you that there were four pieces of evidence on which if I understand you correctly, you based your decision to murder. One of those pieces of evidence was taped conversations with someone who turned out to have been Vrye Weekblad about Operations Liaison and the Midrand operation?
MR BELLINGAN: It's not correct Mr Chairman, I don't know with - the conversation was with the same person Janine was talking to, whether they had any contact with someone in the Vrye Weekblad, how it got to the Vrye Weekblad, I don't know Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: It could have been someone, a journalist at Vrye Weekblad.
MR BELLINGAN: Secondly, it was only in regard to Operation Liaison the operation at Industrial Information Services hadn't been exposed anywhere in the media, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: No I'm not suggesting that it had. I understand you perfectly and I understand your answer so you didn't know whether the person she spoke to was a Vrye Weekblad person but what was clear to you by then was that those conversations that you had heard on the tapes resulted in the exposure in Vrye Weekblad?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Secondly, there was another taped conversation with the same person in which she said that she would mail the list of hits that weekend?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Thirdly, there was the conversation, the telephone conversation with Judy in which she said that Janine intended to sink the Security Branch to get you out by exposing certain things
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Fourthly, Janine told you on that Friday when you phoned her not to be concerned because she knew what she was doing?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Which you understood really to confirm Judy's statement to you?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman and also the tape recording.
MR TRENGOVE: Now am I correct in my understanding that it is those four pieces of evidence which made you decide to murder your wife?
MR BELLINGAN: There was more to it Mr Chairman, there was already a history of events up to the stage that I started to tap the telephone, scrutinise Janine's actions as it were.
MR TRENGOVE: Ja but you didn't - that was not killing stuff. There was a long history of unhappiness about it but what made you murder your wife, what made you conclude that it was your duty to murder your wife was these four pieces of evidence?
MR BELLINGAN: It was also those four pieces of evidence in particular the latter ones that decided me to do it then Mr Chairman. The thought had already crossed my mind before that, that what made me make up my mind or what made me make the decision at that time was the inevitability of the situation then.
MR BELLINGAN: Sorry to interrupt, the whole Numsa thing was highly sensitive.
MR TRENGOVE: That had been coming since '89, Mr Bellingan and it never occurred to you to murder your wife as a result of the Numsa disclosures? Correct?
MR BELLINGAN: It was part of my decision Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, answer the question. The Numsa threat of exposure had existed since '89 and you had never considered murdering your wife for that reason?
MR BELLINGAN: In order to answer I would have to explain that what I did specifically about the Numsa matter, about Nicholas Umsa, that account I opened was to close the account and to try and get Janine to forget about that but she was aware or it became apparent to me that she was aware that these activities were carrying on by my colleagues, Mr Chairman and they were indeed carrying on, it was a broader thing, it was not just I who was involved in intercepting a few cheques.
MR TRENGOVE: Who carried on those activities, give us names,
after you had withdrawn from it?
MR BELLINGAN: I had provided two already, that is Dave Walkley and Piet Mogai.
MR TRENGOVE: On the Geldenhuys account and on the Namedi Umsa account?
MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes and did you consider murdering your wife for that reason?
MR BELLINGAN: Not for that reason alone Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: If I understand your evidence correctly and if I understand your amnesty application correctly Mr Bellingan what precipitated your decision to murder was the realisation that there was this risk of exposure and you realised that there was this imminent risk of exposure on the grounds of those four pieces of evidence?
MR BELLINGAN: That is what actuated me at the time Mr Chairman but the part of the problem was the fact that Janine knew the real information about our operations, I had explained it all to her then. It was all part of her knowledge, I had gone into a lot more detail than just at the time when Charles Mendalow and just at the time when family members had said to me your wife is making some wild allegations, etcetera, etcetera. It was a process Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: I understand all these things have long histories but you have explained to us quite clearly in your amnesty application and in your evidence how it came that you realised with a shock that there was a risk of exposure which in turn caused you to murder. You now add all sorts of other considerations to it which was never mentioned in your amnesty application, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: I don't think that is correct Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: Well show us where it's mentioned, you see you described the event quite clearly in your second amnesty application from page 427. There's a background over the years and then at page 427 in the second paragraph the story picks up in mid '91 and goes on to explain why you murdered, do you see that?
MR BELLINGAN: Just a minute please?
MR TRENGOVE: Now from that second paragraph on 426 through to - you'll see at 429 second paragraph you say that you decided to murder her and between the two, on those two pages, you explain why you came to that decision, correct Mr Bellingan?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And the only two pieces - in that part by the way you only rely on two pieces of evidence, that's the telephone conversation, the taped telephone conversations about Liaison and the Midrand on the one hand and then this conversation of which describe at the top of page 428 in which she said that she would mail the list of hits that weekend. That's the only evidence disclosed in this application on which you based your decision to murder.
MR BELLINGAN: It's not correct Mr Chairman. My evidence before the Committee, I've spoken about what happened with Lorna Smith returning the documentation that she had and that is referred to over here. I say here
"During August I had ascertained that Janine had received back some documentation pertaining to my work which someone had in safekeeping for her."
That is Lorna Smith, Mr Chairman. I remember mentioning it in my evidence before the Committee.
MR TRENGOVE: All you knew was that she had some documents, you don't know what it was?
MR BELLINGAN: No, I did not know what it was but it was concerning my work.
MR TRENGOVE: It could have been this hit list, it doesn't add anything to the two pieces of evidence which caused you to murder?
MR BELLINGAN: Just repeat the question please?
MR TRENGOVE: The knowledge that there was something that she had received back from Lorna Smith didn't contribute to your decision to murder, your decision to murder was based on these taped conversations which made you realise that the hit list was about to be exposed?
MR BELLINGAN: It certainly contributed to drawing my - to alerting me, Mr Chairman, to the focus of the problem then and the fact that there was documentation coming back so that I needed to see what I could do about getting my hands on that documentation. Lorna Smith was very hostile to me Mr Chairman, it couldn't have spelt anything good for me for her to have documentation which Janine had given her for safekeeping in view of the background of me knowing that Janine was - had kept documentation, she had not given me all the documentation back which presumably must have come from Mr Bastiaans at the time. She had given me some documentation back, in fact she gave me back amongst other things my Numsa passport she had. She gave it back to me, I burned it Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You knew by then that Janine left some of this discriminating documentation with other people for safekeeping? You realised that, if you hadn't known it before, you realised it in August?
MR BELLINGAN: She had it hidden away somewhere, where exactly I don't know Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Just answer the question.
MR TRENGOVE: You realised in August that one of the ways in which she hid the documents away was to give them to other people for safekeeping?
MR BELLINGAN: This is referring to Lorna Smith, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Just answer the question
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes. You were showing us where in this amnesty application you rely on other evidence for your decision to murder, could you identify anything else?
MR BELLINGAN: Just repeat that please?
MR TRENGOVE: You were identifying in your amnesty application any other evidence on which you relied for your decision to murder and you're pointed out to the discovery in August that Janine had received that documents from Lorna Smith. I there anything else apart from the four pieces of evidence that I've identified that you say precipitated the decision?
MR BELLINGAN: I'm not quite sure I understand the question, is that aside from the Numsa matter?
MR TRENGOVE: No, I'm not asking you again to explain to us why you murdered, I'm simply asking you to look at your amnesty application where you gave an explanation. You gave the explanation from page 427 to 429 and what I'm suggesting to you is that the only evidence that you said there, you based your decision on was the taped conversations which led to the Vrye Weekblad exposure firstly. Secondly, the taped conversation in which she promised to mail the hit list that weekend and you've added to those two the document she got back from Lorna Smith in August. Are we agreed that on this document that is the only evidence on which you based your decision?
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, the explanation starts on page - the nature on particular starts on page 421. The political objective is on page 441 ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, we can all read and we've all read that document at length and we all know very well that is not my question. My question is what evidence, on what evidence did you base your decision to murder?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, the things that the advocate has mentioned including the other thing about Lorna Smith and including the whole background of the Numsa affair, including also the matter concerning what Janine told me about the agent and the source which ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, that was immediately after your marriage, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: It was a long time before that Mr Chairman, it's just something that was in the back of my mind at that stage.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes you told us yesterday that that exposure came just before your marriage and she told you about it just after your marriage?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: I think that you said the call to Weekly Mail and her telling you of it was something like a month apart?
MR BELLINGAN: I think that's correct Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Before and after your wedding because the one happened before your wedding and the other one after, you also told us that?
MR BELLINGAN: I came to know of it after my wedding Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: I did not know of it before.
MR TRENGOVE: No, but you learnt then that the call had been made about a month earlier and you explained that that was before you were married, isn't that correct?
MR BELLINGAN: When exactly Janine made a call like that I don't know Mr Chairman but the exposure of these people had occurred prior to my marriage Mr Chairman, So if there was such a phone call it must have been done prior to my marriage, exactly the time frames I don't know, I'm sorry.
MR TRENGOVE: So she betrayed you on the eve of the marriage and told you about it during the honeymoon, is that what you're saying?
MR BELLINGAN: It's far too dramatically put Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: No, it is ridiculous but I'm going to suggest to you later that that evidence is utterly ridiculous and this is just one of the aspects of it which illustrates how ridiculous it is.
MR BELLINGAN: I'm not sure if that's a question?
MR TRENGOVE: Is the effect of your evidence not that she betrayed you on the eve of your marriage and told you within weeks thereafter?
MR BELLINGAN: You see Mr Chairman, Janine did not see that as betraying me at all?
MR TRENGOVE: I'm not asking what she thought of it, I'm asking what you thought of it?
MR BELLINGAN: I was very angry with Janine about that.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes. Let's go back to your explanation for your decision to murder and the evidence on which it was based. I'd like to deal with the first piece of evidence that I have identified which you describe at page 427 in the second paragraph, that is the telephone calls that led to the Vrye Weekblad exposure. Do you have that? And you have a clear understanding of which calls it is that I'm talking about?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you indicate that you agree?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Now just to recap, you had heard those conversations on your tape recording of the home telephone, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And you didn't know to whom Janine was speaking, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: But the Operation Liaison had been exposed in Vrye Weekblad?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And you put two and two together and realised that she must have been the source of the exposure?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: When did you hear those taped conversations, when did they take place?
MR BELLINGAN: It was around if my recollection is correct, around the middle of 1991.
MR TRENGOVE: In other words about June '91?
MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Some months before her death?
MR BELLINGAN: The tape recording that I heard was prior to Janine's death, obviously. How long before I can't recall.
MR TRENGOVE: Are you telling me that all you can say is that she didn't speak to people after you had murdered her?
MR BELLINGAN: It was during 1991 prior to Janine's death which is in September so ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: I'm sure it wasn't after her death Mr Bellingan, obviously it was before her death. I'm asking you when?
MR BELLINGAN: I don't remember Mr Chairman, sorry.
MR TRENGOVE: Can't you even remember when you heard those conversations in relation to her death, how long before her death did you discover that she was leaking this information?
MR BELLINGAN: If my recollection serves me correct it was around the middle of - it could have been earlier too, Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: You see, I was faced with another problem Mr Chairman ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: No, no, no, just answer the question Mr Bellingan. I'll give you every opportunity if you want to answer the question but that's all you're allowed to do.
MR BELLINGAN: What's the question?
MR TRENGOVE: You say in the statement round about the middle of 1991
"I tried everything to keep Janine happy, I agreed to sell our home. It was with a shock that I realised in September that Janine had somehow been persuaded to leak knowledge."
How were you able in your statement to say it was September if you can't even tell us today whether it was the middle of the year, early in the year or later in the year?
MR TRENGOVE: Well I was trying to explain just now Mr Chairman that it was not every opportunity that I had to get up and get the tape recorder so when I had an opportunity to do that without being noticed I would get up and get the tape recorder and we had no dates Mr Chairman, it was not like Operation WH11 where on a daily basis we would get a transcript of what was happening with dates on etcetera, etcetera, it was not like that at all. These were conversations when the tape was full, it was full and when I had an opportunity to get up and get the tape to listen to it then I would do that. Sometimes weeks transpired and wouldn't get an opportunity to get up and get the tape recorder. Janine was aware that I had been doing that in the house next door where Lorna Smit later moved into and it was awkward.
MR TRENGOVE: So you're saying that you heard these tapes for the first time in September?
MR BELLINGAN: It's possible Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Anything is possible Mr Bellingan and I'm simply asking you whether your statement is true or not?
MR BELLINGAN: As far as my recollection is concerned my statement is true Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: I see. How are you now able to say you listened to that tape in September if you were so utterly able to put a date to it when I asked you a few minutes ago?
MR BELLINGAN: I did listen to the tape in September Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: How are you now able to date that event?
MR BELLINGAN: Is this the Liaison event?
MR TRENGOVE: How are you able to date that event, i.e. your listening to the tape?
MR BELLINGAN: Simply Mr Chairman because it was of critical importance to myself to my work.
MR TRENGOVE: Why were you unable to do so when I asked you about it just now?
MR BELLINGAN: I understood just now Mr Chairman that the advocate was referring specifically to a conversation about one incident which was the Liaison incident.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, just let me interrupt this line for a moment to establish something else. You're a professional liar, is that correct? You lie for a living or you lied for a living?
MR BELLINGAN: If the advocate is referring to Stratcom, I would have to say that that is not correct.
MR TRENGOVE: Your job was to lie and cheat?
MR BELLINGAN: That was part of it Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And you received training in lying?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, that was one of the aspects.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes so you were a professional liar and you were to be believed a successful one.
MR BELLINGAN: It's too ridiculous to be true Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: No, it's absolutely true, that was your job, was to lie and mislead?
MR BELLINGAN: It was one part of strategic communication Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes, yes and you were trained in the ways of lying and misleading successfully, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: In order to achieve certain objectives, yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes and look at the one bit of wisdom that you chose to identify as significant at page 470 of your second amnesty application? Maybe would you go back just to identify the context Mr Bellingan? Go back to page 468, you'll see there. We have been told that the quotes that follow come from a document titled Tradecraft which was prescribed study material on the intelligence handlers course which you attended at Daisy Farm in 1983, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: So this was prescribed study material. Now turn - and then there follows a series of quotes and then go to page 470, the last extract on that page, the extract from page 52 could you just read it for the record please?
"Hints on providing a good cover story and maintaining it"
a) Operatives should be prepared to give the cover story to friends and neighbours as well as police and security personnel."
"d) Be confusing and avoid specific facts which cannot be dead ended unless you can do so naturally."
MR TRENGOVE: Now a cover story is a lie, that's correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes it is a lie Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: ...[inaudible] evidence that you want to ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: And maintaining it, one of the hints was to be confusing and avoid specific facts, correct? That's one of the tricks of your trade?
MR BELLINGAN: That was what we were taught Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes and you have with success employed that trick in all the accounts that you've given of your murder of your wife, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Not so successfully Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: I know, you were caught out.
MR BELLINGAN: I went to prison.
MR TRENGOVE: Despite the fact that you employed the trick as best you could?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And you still do so today, avoid specifics, avoid specific facts, be confusing, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: No let me just read it to you again? Do you still have it in front of you Mr Bellingan?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman I do.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes, what does it say? What does the ...[intervention]
MR BELLINGAN: "Be confusing and avoid specific facts which cannot be dead ended unless you can do so naturally."
MR TRENGOVE: Yes, that's the way in which you give your evidence even in this Commission, isn't that so?
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, I've agreed to be open, I've agreed to tell this Commission the truth and that is the way I give my evidence Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: So to get back, when did you hear the tape recorded conversations which led to the Vrye Weekblad exposé?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I've already answered the question but I don't mind doing it again, I don't remember ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: You don't remember?
MR BELLINGAN: Because it was as I understand it, around the middle of 1991.
MR TRENGOVE: And when you listened to those conversations, were you able to date the conversations themselves? You listened to a tape recording, you hear your wife speaking to a man, are you able to determine when she spoke to that man?
MR TRENGOVE: Or does your tape not have that facility in it?
MR TRENGOVE: I see. How many conversations did she have with that man other than this last one about the hit list?
MR BELLINGAN: Not a lot, it was three or four Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: What did she tell him of Operation Liaison?
MR BELLINGAN: She explained to him that it was a Trade Union operation, run by the Security Branch, it was a cover, it had a cover which was - the cover that it was a registered company and that the operational name was the same as the actual registered company if my memory serves me correct and that there were certain people from the university, Rand Afrikaans University, that were involved in this matter and it was not in fact a legitimate company. That was the gist of what she was saying. It was important to me Mr Chairman and in fact perhaps it would be helpful in terms of dating it.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes. I would like you to confine yourself to the question, if you want to add anything in answer to the question by all means but please remember that's one of the rules by which we play?
MR BELLINGAN: I understand. Just if it helps to date the matter, I remember one of my first duties towards the end of September was in fact to go and speak to some people of Rand Afrikaans University and see if we couldn't smooth over the matter. I'd been asked to do that by Colonel Oosthuizen.
MR TRENGOVE: So how does that help us? What question are you answering?
MR BELLINGAN: It confirms what I'm saying to you that it would have been around the middle of 1991 that there was this exposure in the newspapers. In fact I don't know why we don't just get the Vrye Weekblad for that matter Mr Chairman and look it up?
MR TRENGOVE: I'm not - you see there would have been three events and you seem to me to conflate all of them. The first event would have been Janine's conversation with the man at the other end. The second event would have been the exposure in Vrye Weekblad and the third event would have been your listening to the tape recording of Janine's conversation. Am I correct in my understanding that those events would have followed in that sequence?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Now please let's then start again, let's start at the beginning. Are you able to say when Janine had those conversations with a man on the telephone?
MR BELLINGAN: No, I'm not able to say with any certainty, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Are you able to say at all when that happened?
MR BELLINGAN: I answered the question but I don't mind repeating it.
MR TRENGOVE: No, no, no, you said you can't do it with any certainty, I'm asking you can you do so with uncertainty?
MR BELLINGAN: Around the middle of 1991 Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Your guess is around the middle of 1991 and then the exposure in Vrye Weekblad? When did that follow?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman from my prison cell I can't be expected to remember all these things, it would have been the simplest matter for somebody to look this up, I've been before this Committee for a long time already.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan if you don't know then you say you don't know?
MR BELLINGAN: I don't know but then I get asked again and again.
MR TRENGOVE: Thirdly, thirdly because you conflate the three dates. Thirdly, the third event was ...[intervention]
MR DU PLESSIS: With respect Mr Chairman, if I may just be allowed?
MR DU PLESSIS: I want to object against the question of my learned friend where he asked if Mr Bellingan can indicate the date with uncertainty. With respect Mr Chairman, if Mr Bellingan has indicated that he cannot remember the date, he cannot remember the date.
MR TRENGOVE: Well that's not what he said Mr Commissioner, he said I can't do so with certainty.
CHAIRPERSON: Just give him an opportunity Mr Trengove?
MR DU PLESSIS: With respect Mr Chairman, I object against the fact that my learned friend then asks if he can date it with uncertainty and then build upon that answer in respect of the date?
MR DU PLESSIS: But now the witness has given an indication that he is not certain about the date?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no I think he's doing okay.
MR TRENGOVE: The third event Mr Bellingan would be the occasion on which you listened to the tapes and discovered that Janine had had the conversations. Can you date that event?
MR BELLINGAN: I'm now confused Mr Chairman. What third event is that, I want to be certain now.
MR TRENGOVE: I'll start again, maybe the interruption that confused you. You agreed with me that there would have been three events which occurred in the following order.
The first is Janine's conversation, telephone conversations with a man.
The second event would be the Vrye Weekblad exposure.
And the third event was your listening to the tape recordings of Janine's conversations.
Do you confirm that I was correct in my understanding that those three events would have occurred in that order?
MR BELLINGAN: Then I must apologise then I shouldn't have confirmed those three as being correct because two and three could have been the other way around. The time that I listened to it could have been prior to the exposure or could have been after, I can't remember any more Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Not if your earlier evidence is true? You told us when we first discussed it that when you listened to these conversations, you had already - you already had knowledge of the Vrye Weekblad exposure and therefore put two and two together and realised that Janine had been the source of the exposure?
MR BELLINGAN: When I listened to the last conversations Mr Chairman, of the tape recordings, I was aware that there had already been an exposure through the Vrye Weekblad, I'm not referring to this specific conversation regarding liaison at that point in time.
MR TRENGOVE: No, the series of conversations you said might have been three or four?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Which we've identified as the conversations described on page 427 paragraph 2 which you said you realised must have led to the Vrye Weekblad exposure, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: When you heard those conversations on tape, the Vrye Weekblad exposure had already taken place and you realised Janine had been the source of it?
MR BELLINGAN: There was an exposure of Operation Liaison prior to my going to Natal, Mr Chairman. I had heard conversation that Janine had had with this person prior to that, so I had drawn the connection already prior to that. There was another conversation after that.
MR TRENGOVE: Are you able to date the occasion on which you heard those conversations on the tape?
MR BELLINGAN: I'm sorry Mr Chairman, I can't do that.
MR TRENGOVE: Was it weeks or months before her death?
MR BELLINGAN: I can no longer do that Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Would it have been days before her death?
MR BELLINGAN: I'm sorry Mr Chairman, I can't do it.
MR TRENGOVE: So it might be days, weeks or months before her death? That's the effect of what you're saying?
MR BELLINGAN: That I heard the conversation or that there was an exposure?
MR TRENGOVE: No, that you heard the conversation?
MR BELLINGAN: It may have been Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: No, I'm saying to you is your answer that you may have heard that conversation days, weeks or months before her death, you simply cannot say?
MR BELLINGAN: No, I can no longer remember Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You don't know with whom she had the conversation, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: What did you do when you heard this conversation and realised that she had been the source of the Vrye Weekblad exposé?
MR BELLINGAN: I made a point of listening again to the tape Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Okay now if you've carefully listened to the tape, what then?
MR BELLINGAN: I'm sorry, let me explain, not the same conversation, I mean further conversations that Janine had after that on the telephone. I made a point of listening to them thereafter as often as I could.
MR TRENGOVE: Well you've now listened to those conversations, how do you respond to it? You switch off the tape, what do you do?
MR BELLINGAN: My reaction was to worry Mr Chairman ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: No, no, I didn't ask you how you felt, I asked you what you did?
MR BELLINGAN: I've already explained that I made a point of listening and being very observant of Janine thereafter.
MR TRENGOVE: No, no, no, you switch off the tape, how do you respond. Do you go to her and say to her what have you been doing?
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, I did not do that.
MR BELLINGAN: Because I was afraid Mr Chairman that I would antagonise Janine.
MR TRENGOVE: You were never scared of antagonising her, reading her diaries it's quite evident that you had antagonised her on a daily basis?
MR BELLINGAN: That is farfetched, Mr Chairman. It's not true.
MR TRENGOVE: You had no hesitation ever in antagonising her and what's more this is an important matter?
MR BELLINGAN: I was afraid of antagonising Janine regarding these political things Mr Chairman, highly sensitive things. As far as my personal relationship and antagonising is concerned, I had already long before then made up my mind how to deal with those things besides from the advice that I got from Lorraine Derai, I had decided that when Janine got irate with me about matters I would simply listen, when she was finished I would say I've heard what you've got to say and I've decided the following, as far as personal matters are concerned.
MR TRENGOVE: So you received representations and just took decisions, is that your style of interpersonal relationship?
MR BELLINGAN: Sorry, just repeat that?
MR TRENGOVE: Your style of interpersonal relationship was to hear Janine's representations and then take a decision?
MR BELLINGAN: In regard to whenever Janine went on a tirade against me regarding circular type arguments about my work and things that I could do nothing about, about my hours of work Mr Chairman, not about other things.
MR TRENGOVE: If these conversations took place then they constituted a massive breach of security, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Did you report it to your commanding officer?
MR BELLINGAN: No I did not Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Was it not your duty to do so?
MR BELLINGAN: It may have been Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: No, just answer the question. Was it or was it not your duty to report it to him?
MR BELLINGAN: I think it would have been correct to say yes.
MR TRENGOVE: Not correct, it's absolutely necessary. You who are prepared to kill the wife you love because you thought it was your duty to do so, must surely have realised that it is your duty to report this breach to your superiors?
MR BELLINGAN: It's absolutely necessary not to report it, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: It was your duty to report it to them Mr Bellingan.
MR BELLINGAN: It was it my duty to report it, it was absolutely necessary that I did not report it.
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, my whole family would have been at risk if I had of done that.
MR TRENGOVE: Do you mean that someone might kill them?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, don't be absurd. You killed for that reason, do you want the Commission to believe that you didn't even tell your commanding officer about it because it might place her health and safety at risk?
MR BELLINGAN: I speak of the entire family Mr Chairman, I speak of ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: You couldn't trust your commanding officer?
MR BELLINGAN: My children are still alive, I'm still alive.
MR TRENGOVE: You couldn't trust your commanding officer. Who was he? Are you saying that?
MR BELLINGAN: I didn't say I couldn't trust my commanding officer. Well I could trust the people I worked with to respond in a certain way and this is not the kind of matter at that point in time that I would report.
MR TRENGOVE: Couldn't you trust your commanding officer not to do anything that would place the lives of your family at risk?
MR BELLINGAN: I did not think so, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You didn't think you could trust him?
MR BELLINGAN: Not with that information, no.
MR TRENGOVE: Who was your commanding officer, the one you didn't trust?
MR BELLINGAN: With this matter?
MR BELLINGAN: It was Colonel Oosthuizen.
MR TRENGOVE: I see. Why didn't you go higher in the ranks, who was his commanding officer?
MR BELLINGAN: It was General Johan le Roux, General Krappies Engelbrecht, General Basie Smit.
MR TRENGOVE: Why didn't you go to one or more of them? Say I have this important information, it is my duty to report it, I don't trust my commanding officer, I come to you?
MR BELLINGAN: There's no way that I could have done that Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: And explain this whole background pertaining to Janine. There's just no way at that point in time it was conceivably possible and least of all could I then have gone back to the Commissioner in Witwatersrand, General Erasmus, and mention that to him.
MR TRENGOVE: Why would Mr Oosthuizen, I forget his rank as it changed from time to time, what was his rank at the time? Colonel Oosthuizen?
MR BELLINGAN: I think it was Colonel, yes.
MR TRENGOVE: Why would your report to Colonel Oosthuizen have placed your family at risk?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, it doesn't only concern Colonel Oosthuizen but he would have mentioned it to other people, there was not such a thing as one hundred percent compartmentalisation. Besides, Colonel Oosthuizen was also involved in covert activities and it would be very clear to him by then that Janine was a risk and that this problem had now not diminished but it was now much worse than before.
MR TRENGOVE: Why would that have placed the lives of her family at risk?
MR BELLINGAN: Because Mr Chairman there was a great need for secrecy and what we are talking about here is unguided, uncontrolled potential use of information and actual use of information in connection with Liaison.
MR TRENGOVE: No Mr Bellingan, these were your colleagues, are you saying that you didn't trust your colleagues not to kill your wife or your children?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, my colleagues are all amnesty applicants in hundreds of incidents ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, answer the question, are you saying you didn't trust your colleagues not to kill your wife or children?
MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You couldn't even trust Colonel Oosthuizen?
MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Was he - if you had told him, he may well have done something you say, that would have placed the lives of your family at risk?
MR BELLINGAN: It's possible Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Trengove when you reach a convenient point?
MR TRENGOVE: One last proposition, this telephone conversation Mr Bellingan, is a fanciful figment of your imagination. It is an attempt to justify the murder as a political act.
MR BELLINGAN: I don't rely upon this conversation regarding Operation Liaison in isolation at all Mr Chairman and the conversation took place.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn until 2 o'clock.
CHAIRPERSON: You're reminded that you're still under oath.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TRENGOVE: (continues)
Mr Bellingan, the Friday night when you flew back to Johannesburg, you first purchased a plane ticket, a return ticket?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: How did you pay for it?
MR BELLINGAN: With cash Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Where did you get the cash?
MR BELLINGAN: I had it on me Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Where did you get it?
MR BELLINGAN: I had drawn money at the autobank in Pietermaritzburg Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: I drew R1000 Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Could I go back to the issues we were dealing with and that's the four pieces of evidence that I identified that prompted your decision to murder. The second piece was the taped conversation in which Janine mentioned the list of hits, do you remember that?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: That's the conversation you describe in the first paragraph on page 428 of the second amnesty application. Correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: When did that conversation take place?
MR BELLINGAN: This conversation was the last conversation that I listened to on the tape recorder Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Do you know when the conversation itself took place I said?
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, I don't know.
MR TRENGOVE: When did you learn of the conversation, in other words when did you first listen to the tape of the conversation?
MR BELLINGAN: It was the - I think it was the weekend Mr Chairman, prior to that.
MR TRENGOVE: The weekend before the murder?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: What did she say in that conversation?
MR BELLINGAN: That she had agreed to provide some substantial information on that occasion in terms of some type of documentation pertaining to the Security Branch, pertaining to the intelligence community that she had with this person.
MR BELLINGAN: No, there was more discussion than just that.
MR TRENGOVE: No, I'm asking you, what did she say?
MR BELLINGAN: She had expressed concern, the person kept insisting that she say who she was. He also said that it would be better for her to say who she was, not just better for her but better for myself as well because she had said her husband is in the Security Branch because this person had said that in all likelihood they in any case know about the information that she had and that in any case an investigation would be under way and that by coming forward and giving information she would in fact exclude the possibility that there would be steps taken against myself. He was trying to persuade her to say who she was and who I was.
MR BELLINGAN: That's about the substance of it Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Did she say that she would mail the information?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: What did she say when would she do so?
MR BELLINGAN: She had referred to the following weekend.
MR TRENGOVE: Did she describe it as the following weekend?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: "I'll mail it to you next weekend"?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Now your evidence is, if I understand you correctly, that when you listened to that conversation it became absolutely clear that she was about to expose the hit list?
MR BELLINGAN: That she had my list Mr Chairman and that she was about to expose it, yes.
MR TRENGOVE: You had no way of knowing whether she was about to disclose it or had already done so?
MR BELLINGAN: I was quite certain that she had not done so Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: Well I knew Janine very well and also from her demeanour towards me from the conversation, from the fact that there hadn't been any change in her behaviour and the fact that I had deduced at the time that the reference was to the possibility that she would do this posting the next weekend.
MR TRENGOVE: No, I know that's what you say but you had no basis for that inference because you didn't know when the conversation had taken place?
MR BELLINGAN: No, but at the time I understood it to be the next weekend.
MR TRENGOVE: I know, that's what you say, I'm testing that evidence of yours because we don't accept it and I'm suggesting to you, you had no basis for that inference?
MR BELLINGAN: At the time Mr Chairman I had satisfied myself that it was with reference to a time in the future, it had not taken place yet.
MR TRENGOVE: I know that's what you say, I'm asking you for the basis of it.
MR BELLINGAN: There were other conversations there to Mr Chairman, for example the domestic servant, other conversations of Janine, also prior to this which assisted me at the time to place this as being the following weekend or a time in the future at any rate.
MR TRENGOVE: No, I asked you whether you could - whether you had any idea when that conversation took place and you said no.
MR BELLINGAN: I couldn't say exactly when that conversation took place Mr Chairman but I satisfied myself that the reference was to a weekend to come still.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes I'm still searching for the basis of that evidence, there's no basis of it at all. You already told us that you couldn't tell when the conversation had taken place and it follows that you couldn't tell what weekend she was referring to?
MR BELLINGAN: It was in the context of what had been said before and what had been said after that I knew that she was referring to next the weekend, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: That context would only help if it enabled you to date her conversation but you've already told us that you couldn't date her conversation, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Not the conversation she had with the person Mr Chairman but I understood at the time she was referring to the weekend after I had listened to ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, with the greatest of respect, you sound as if you're following the hint, be confusing and don't give specific facts. We've already established that you didn't - that all she said was "I'll mail it to you next weekend" and you couldn't tell when she had said that?
MR BELLINGAN: Her words were to that effect Mr Chairman. I understood it to be the weekend to come at the time that I listened to the conversation.
MR TRENGOVE: You say that you were then sure that she was about to divulge this information, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: But your answer to the TRC question says that merely that you were not a hundred percent sure that she might not do so at some time in future? Those two answers are directly contradictory aren't they?
MR BELLINGAN: She was being persuaded ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: No, no, just answer the question. Those two answers are directly contradictory, they're incapable of reconciliation.
MR BELLINGAN: Just repeat which two please?
MR TRENGOVE: You said in your answer to the TRC that at that time you were not a hundred percent certain that she might not at some time in future divulge the information, that's on the one hand. On the other you tell us today that you were absolutely certain that she was about to divulge the information? Those two answers are irreconcilable.
MR BELLINGAN: The first one Mr Chairman was with reference to phone conversation on Friday with Janine wherein in the context of my relationship with Janine I said that I had now satisfied myself that there was not a hundred percent certainty in my mind that she wouldn't do this.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, what I'm - ja?
MR BELLINGAN: The second was my answer with reference to the fact that Janine had said that she would be posting documentation.
MR TRENGOVE: And I want to put it to you further that this contradiction between those two answers is something of which you have been keenly aware at least when you gave your evidence yesterday, correct? You were aware of that.
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, no.
MR TRENGOVE: You tried to bridge the gap between the two in your evidence yesterday. Do you remember how you did it?
MR BELLINGAN: I had no conscious attempt to do anything of the sort.
MR TRENGOVE: No you did it very clearly. When you gave your evidence you initially said that on the tape she hinted that she might mail the document or expose the document. One of the Commissioners then took it up with you and said
"Did she hint or did she say?"
"Well she said but I know her as temperamental and therefore I wasn't sure."
MR BELLINGAN: Yes I do Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: That was an ineffective attempt to bridge the gap between the two contradictory versions, Mr Bellingan.
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, not at all.
MR TRENGOVE: And to go back to that evidence, did she hint or did she say that she would mail the hit list?
MR BELLINGAN: She said she would post it, I understood it to be that from Janines voices intonation that it was not a certainty in her mind Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Just get back - she said "I will mail this to you next weekend", you say that's a hint and not a promise?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman in the context and plain regard to the voice intonation, when a person is being pressurised to say something then sometimes they don't mean it and I gathered that Janine was being pressurised from the phone conversation and that.
MR TRENGOVE: Ja but the question is not whether she meant what she said or not, the question is whether she said something or merely hinted it? What's the answer Mr Bellingan?
MR BELLINGAN: I understood it that there was not absolute certainty for me that she would be doing that but at the same time she said it.
MR TRENGOVE: Won't you just answer the question? What is it, did she hint or say, hint or promise?
MR BELLINGAN: It was a promise.
MR TRENGOVE: And yet you were uncertain whether she would make good on the promise, you say.
MR BELLINGAN: At that stage I was uncertain Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: For two reasons, firstly the tone of voice, what was it about the tone of voice which made the promise sound insincere?
MR BELLINGAN: It's a perception I had at the time I can't specifically recollect now Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: That's not the explanation you gave yesterday, do you remember that? Do you not remember?
MR BELLINGAN: No I don't remember.
MR TRENGOVE: Yesterday you said well you said "she would but I know her as temperamental and therefore I wasn't sure." It had nothing to do with tone of voice?
MR BELLINGAN: Well obviously Mr Chairman in the context of my knowledge of Janine's characteristics I would pay due regard to what I heard and what I saw to come to that conclusion.
MR TRENGOVE: No that was not the way in which it was said but the personality of the person speaking which was offered as an explanation yesterday.
MR BELLINGAN: That is true Mr Chairman, it is in terms of one's knowledge of a person and their behaviour that one analyses their communication.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan ...[intervention]
MR BELLINGAN: Different people respond in different ways.
MR TRENGOVE: And I'm raising that merely to demonstrate to you that you are acutely aware of this contradiction and you tried dishonestly to bridge that gap yesterday.
MR BELLINGAN: Not at all Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: So at this stage you are still uncertain whether she would actually make the exposure, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: I'm one hundred percent certain that she was going to Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: No, no, no, at the time when you listened to that conversation, I thought you'd just explained to us why you were not yet certain that she would do it?
MR BELLINGAN: There were events after that Mr Chairman which caused me to be certain.
MR TRENGOVE: Ja, that's why I say when you listened to this conversation, you were not yet certain that she would do it?
MR BELLINGAN: I was not certain, no.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes and that's why you didn't decide to murder her at that stage?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Ja but that is not what you said in your amnesty application, have a look at page 429? You see at the top of the page you describe this tape recorded conversation and the first paragraph and then you continue in the second paragraph
"In order to neutralise the threat I decided to eliminate Janine. The problem was manifold and weighed heavily on me. I decided to do it during the trip to Natal. I had no choice."
That meaning is absolutely clear, you took the decision before you left for Natal?
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, I took the decision while I was in Durban.
MR TRENGOVE: Are you saying that is what that sentence means?
MR BELLINGAN: That is what both sentences mean Mr Chairman, this refers to my decision during my trip to Natal.
MR TRENGOVE: No, no, no, you said "I decided to do it during the trip to Natal." That means "I took the decision in Johannesburg to kill her during my trip to Natal."
MR BELLINGAN: No, I decided to do it during the trip to Natal.
MR TRENGOVE: I see. Why didn't you mention the two critical bits of evidence that prompted the final decision?
MR BELLINGAN: I'm not with the advocate, Mr Chairman?
MR TRENGOVE: You say you were not yet finally persuaded on the evidence available to you by the time you left for Natal, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: What tipped the scale was the two telephone conversations with Judy and Janine while you were in Natal?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: They were the critical pieces of evidence which swayed you, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And they're not mentioned in your amnesty application?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: These details I understood one filled in at the Commission.
MR TRENGOVE: No, you have an application which runs to hundreds of pages. The critical bit of evidence which persuaded you to murder your wife is withheld, why?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, if one looks at the content of this amnesty application, on can clearly see that of all the incidents Schedule 20 has by far the most detail.
MR BELLINGAN: The other ones have much less details.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes, yes exactly.
MR BELLINGAN: It says if more detail is required ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: Exactly, exactly.
MR BELLINGAN: ...[indistinct] at the hearing.
MR TRENGOVE: And why leave out the critical bit. If you give all this detail why leave out the critical bit?
MR BELLINGAN: The advocate deems it to be a critical and necessary bit of information and it is for that reason that I've covered it over here, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, my views are irrelevant, my case is that it's a bit of fabrication and utterly irrelevant to this enquiry. Your case is that it was the critical bit of evidence which tipped the scales, that's your case, that's your evidence. Why leave it out of your application?
MR BELLINGAN: Perhaps I should have put it in my application Mr Chairman?
MR TRENGOVE: Yes, it's not there because it's a piece of fabrication, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: No, no, that is not correct Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: I'll come back to that topic. When you learnt that she was to expose this hit list which would have sunk your unit, the Security Branch, the Nationalist Party and the peace process, don't you think you should have mentioned it to someone?
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, I didn't think so.
MR TRENGOVE: Shouldn't you have reported it to your superiors?
MR TRENGOVE: Shouldn't you have reported it to the Commissioner of Police?
MR TRENGOVE: Shouldn't you have reported it to the State President, tell him that this peace initiative of his was a risk of being sunk?
MR BELLINGAN: Most definitely not, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Wasn't it your duty to do so?
MR BELLINGAN: It may have been my duty.
MR TRENGOVE: Was it your duty to do so?
MR TRENGOVE: Your country's future was at stake, if you were to be believed? Correct? And you don't report it to anybody instead you kill your wife?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Could you explain, could you give any rational explanation for choosing the course rather than the other?
MR BELLINGAN: I thought I had explained it already in response to the same question but I don't mind doing it again and that is that it would made the entire family a risk in terms of the elimination Mr Chairman and such a thing would be so difficult to explain and in any case the same course of action would have had to have been followed, it's just that a wider circle of people would have known about it, the risk of exposure of the incident would have been wider and it was not the course, not the way to go. I decided to take the risk upon myself to compartmentalise the thing as far as possible. People were speaking too much, there was too many investigations Mr Chairman, I decided to take the risk myself.
MR TRENGOVE: Because you didn't trust you colleagues?
MR BELLINGAN: I trusted them in a certain sense.
MR TRENGOVE: No, no, because you didn't trust your colleagues? You didn't fully trust your colleagues?
MR BELLINGAN: I trusted my colleagues to do certain things and I trusted them also to do certain things.
MR TRENGOVE: That's a non-sensical answer Mr Bellingan, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: It's not a question that one can say yes or no to Mr Chairman, it's an answer that requires an explanation.
MR TRENGOVE: You didn't report this risk to the countries future, to your superiors, because you didn't fully trust your colleagues?
MR BELLINGAN: Perhaps that is true Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You thought that if you told them they might have family murdered?
MR BELLINGAN: As I've explained amongst other reasons, yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Why didn't you tell the State President of this risk to his peace initiative, did you suspect him too?
MR BELLINGAN: It is because of the policies of the National Party that I found myself in that predicament Mr Chairman in the first place.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, answer the question, why didn't you report to the President if his countries future was at stake?
MR BELLINGAN: I can't think of a possible way I could have done that Mr Chairman, in the circumstances.
MR TRENGOVE: Why not report to General Erasmus? He'd been your friend and confidante in the past? He was like a father figure to you, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: I could not go to General Erasmus, Mr Chairman. I was ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.
MR BELLINGAN: I was not prepared to embarrass the unit, to embarrass everybody, to embarrass the National Party Mr Chairman, I wasn't prepared to allow it.
MR TRENGOVE: General Erasmus had been like a father figure to you correct?
MR BELLINGAN: That's true to a certain extent.
MR TRENGOVE: You had previously gone to him with your personal problems, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes I had gone to him Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: He had given you sage advice, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Which you followed?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You regarded him as a father figure and therefore trusted him?
MR BELLINGAN: No, that is not correct.
MR TRENGOVE: You didn't trust him.
MR BELLINGAN: No, it's not that I didn't trust him as that the father figure image, it was a professional relationship primarily Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Ja but this is a professional issue? Why not tell him about it? "General, what must I do? If Janine must be killed please let someone else do it."
MR BELLINGAN: There was far too many leaks at the time Mr Chairman. Such a thing to burden other people with that responsibility Mr Chairman would have been wrong.
MR TRENGOVE: You burdened him with your marital problems before, why not burden him with the country's problems?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, it was most definitely not I who initiated discussions with General Erasmus concerning any maritial problems that I had or didn't have for that matter.
MR TRENGOVE: Then the third piece of evidence is the telephone conversation with Judy. She's again in the audience today is that correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You say that that conversation took place when, Thursday?
MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: It would have been either in the morning or in the evening Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Well was it the morning or the evening?
MR BELLINGAN: I don't recollect Mr Chairman before or after the conference.
MR TRENGOVE: ...[inaudible] morning or in the evening, isn't that so?
MR BELLINGAN: It may have been in the morning, it may have been in the evening. There was a colleague of mine sitting in the room Mr Chairman and if he has any recollection of the incident, I think it's been canvassed at one of the previous forums, the inquest as well. I didn't remember then and I still don't remember Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You know you said yesterday that he called you on Friday, do you remember that?
MR BELLINGAN: Are we referring now to Judy White?
MR TRENGOVE: Ja, Judy White your sister. You said yesterday that she called you on Friday?
MR BELLINGAN: No I didn't say that Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: I see, what did you say yesterday?
MR BELLINGAN: I did not say that, I said a lot of other things I didn't say that.
MR TRENGOVE: Now what did you say about that call, how and when did it take place?
MR BELLINGAN: I definitely did not say, Friday.
MR TRENGOVE: It couldn't have been Friday, could it?
MR BELLINGAN: It was not Friday Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: She couldn't have phoned you on Friday because she didn't know where you were, correct?
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman with respect, my recollection of the evidence was that he did testify that the phone call was on a Thursday. That is my recollection.
MR BELLINGAN: Besides from that it was I who phoned Judy.
CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute Mr Bellingan. Yes it's not a difficult issue to clarify. I don't have a particularly clear recollection but we would have notes on that.
By the way Mr Trengove is pursuing that on the basis of ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: No, it's not something we need to debate, the record will show what you said yesterday. She could not have phoned you on Friday, is that correct?
MR BELLINGAN: I phoned Judy, she didn't phone me.
MR TRENGOVE: Just answer the question, Mr Bellingan
MR TRENGOVE: She could not have phoned you on Friday?
MR BELLINGAN: If she had phoned me at the Tropicana, if I had told her I was staying at the Tropicana, then she could have phoned me on Friday but the conversation was on Thursday.
MR TRENGOVE: She could not have phoned you on Friday because on Friday you were no longer at the Tropicana?
MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman, yes.
MR TRENGOVE: So she could not have phoned you on Friday?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Who phoned ...[intervention]
MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that is correct.
MR TRENGOVE: Who phoned whom when this conversation took place?
MR BELLINGAN: Judy phoned - I phoned Judy.
MR BELLINGAN: To confirm the arrangements for the braai, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: So it was a purely incidental call between brother and sister?
MR TRENGOVE: Until she made this shocking statement?
MR BELLINGAN: It was a bit more that just that Mr Chairman because we had to make arrangements for her to fetch me in Pietermaritzburg so that we could go to the braai.
MR BELLINGAN: She did not know where I would be.
MR TRENGOVE: But that's the kind of conversation that one has, probably a few times a day with members of your family, there was nothing special about it until this shocking statement was made, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: It was an important call for me to make Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: I see. In the course of this conversation about braai arrangements, she says - just remind me what she said? The shocking bit?
MR BELLINGAN: Judy said to me that Janine was going to hit out, destroy the - take some action against the Security Branch.
MR BELLINGAN: She started out by asking me whether I was aware or whether I was going to be leaving the Security Branch. She sounded quite of hopeful about that, I remember.
MR BELLINGAN: And then she said that I did not pursue it at all ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: And then she said what? She said "are you going to leave the Security Branch?" You said - what's your answer to the question? What was your answer to her question, "are you going to leave the Security Branch?"
MR BELLINGAN: My answer was most definitely not and I asked her why she would ask me that.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes and then she said?
MR BELLINGAN: And then she said to me words to the effect that - of what Janine was intending to do.
MR TRENGOVE: No, no, no tell us, what did she say?
MR BELLINGAN: She said words to the effect that Janine was intending to disclose information to destroy the Security Branch.
MR TRENGOVE: I see. Astounding thing for Judy to tell you, isn't it?
MR BELLINGAN: Absolutely Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: So you said "Where did you hear that?"
MR BELLINGAN: No I never said that Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: A colleague of mine was sitting in the room.
MR TRENGOVE: Why not say to her "Where did you hear that?"
MR BELLINGAN: She told me already that Janine had phoned her.
MR BELLINGAN: She said Janine has phoned me...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: Yes? To say that she's going to destroy the security police?
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, to find out whether I would be returning on the Friday, to find out whether I would indeed be staying over or braaing or whatever with the family, words to that effect.
MR BELLINGAN: And that I should - Janine was wanting to know where I was staying.
MR TRENGOVE: Now when - then I ask again, when she said Janine is going to destroy the Security Branch by disclosing information, why didn't you say to her "Where do you hear that?"
MR BELLINGAN: She already explained to me that Janine had phoned her Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: So did you just jump to the conclusion that Janine had phoned her and told her that that was what she was going to do?
MR BELLINGAN: No, she told me that Janine had spoken to her.
MR TRENGOVE: Aren't you drifting into be confusing and not specific mode again Mr Bellingan?
MR BELLINGAN: It's very clear to me.
MR TRENGOVE: Did she say to you "Janine told me that she is going to destroy the Security Branch by making these disclosures". Is that what she said?
MR BELLINGAN: Words to that effect Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: I see. Did you not say to her "what is it that she's going to disclose?"
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, I didn't.
MR BELLINGAN: Because I didn't need to, I knew what she was going to disclose.
MR TRENGOVE: So she just made the statement, said "Janine tells me she's going to destroy the Security Branch by disclosing information" and what's your response. You said "see you on Saturday"?
MR BELLINGAN: I asked - I moved the conversation along Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: What did you say?
MR BELLINGAN: To the directions, I didn't pursue it any further.
MR TRENGOVE: So you immediately reverted to the braai arrangements
MR BELLINGAN: To the arrangements for the meeting Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes. Now that seems an extraordinary thing Mr Bellingan. She tells you your wife is about to destroy the Security Branch and you say "well, about our braai arrangements"?
MR BELLINGAN: It was an extraordinary situation Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Was she not curious to know more? Didn't she say to you "but what's going on, what is she going to disclose, why is she doing this, has she gone made?" Didn't she ask any questions about it?
MR BELLINGAN: She may have attempted to pursue it, I moved the conversation along, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: No I don't know want to know what she might have done, she might have done anything. What did she do?
MR BELLINGAN: She got along with telling me about the arrangements Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: So she didn't ask any questions about it?
MR BELLINGAN: As I said just now, she may have tried to pursue it, I don't recall, I was deep in thought about the information that Judy had given me and the rest - all I was concerned about was getting to the telephone conversation, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: But put yourself in her shoes, isn't this an extraordinary, bizarre conversation? Her sister-in-law phones and says I'm going to destroy the Security Branch by making a lot of disclosures. She phones her brother, the security policeman, to say "Janine says she's going to destroy the Security Branch by making a lot of disclosures" and the brother says "well about our braai arrangements" etcetera, etcetera. Quite bizarre isn't it Mr Bellingan, from her perspective?
MR BELLINGAN: No, I don't think from her perspective Mr Chairman and I think the right thing for me to do was the way I dealt with the situation.
MR TRENGOVE: No, I'm asking you whether you don't agree with me that looking at the conversation from her perspective, it would have seemed quite bizarre?
MR BELLINGAN: It may have seemed bizarre to Judy White, she may be the right one to ask.
MR TRENGOVE: No, it must have seemed quite bizarre?
MR BELLINGAN: Perhaps Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: So now you know not only - now you know two things. Firstly that your suspicions have been confirmed, correct? About Janine's intention?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: What was uncertain before has now become a certainty, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And secondly that she's talking around about her intentions? Telling even her sister-in-law, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: So I take it you phoned Janine and said to her "what is this I hear from Judy about your plans to destroy the Security Branch?"
MR BELLINGAN: Most definitely not, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Why not, isn't that what anybody in your situation would do? Shocking news, "my wife intends to destroy the organisation to which I've devoted my life"?
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, it would have been exactly the wrong thing to do for the reasons that I've already mentioned about not antagonising Janine apropos political matters and secondly for the fact that there may have been other people tapping the telephone.
MR TRENGOVE: No but there's nothing about antagonization, I didn't say antagonise her, she's apparently quite open about it, she tells her sister-in-law about it. Why not phone her and ask her "what is this you've been telling Judy, on the telephone?"
MR BELLINGAN: I did it in my own way, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: I know you did and I don't accept the truth of your evidence and therefore we're attesting it. Why did you not phone Janine and ask he about it?
MR BELLINGAN: Because it was not possible Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: How would I possibly have resolved this situation on the telephone which I couldn't have resolved face to face, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: At least even if you couldn't resolve it you would at least have learnt more about it, your wife was apparently being quite open about her intentions, why not ask her about it?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I knew so much about Janine's intentions already at that stage that I didn't need to.
MR TRENGOVE: You didn't need to. Now you're certain that this bomb was about to explode, why not report it to your superiors?
MR BELLINGAN: It was impossible Mr Chairman and it would have been the wrong thing to do under the circumstances.
MR TRENGOVE: Same reasons as before?
MR BELLINGAN: Same reasons as before.
MR TRENGOVE: Why didn't you report it to the Commissioner of Police?
MR BELLINGAN: Same reason Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Why did you not mention it in your amnesty application?
MR BELLINGAN: For the reasons that I've already mentioned, the fact that perhaps ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: I don't remember, will you repeat them please?
MR BELLINGAN: I should have mentioned the phone call home, secondly Mr Chairman ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: No, no, no, we're talking about the Judy White conversation. Why did you not mention - that's the conversation that tipped the scale, why not mention it in your amnesty application?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, from the beginning I've asked Judy White to keep out of it, she was no supporter of the Security Branch and I told her to keep out of these things. Then how would I go along and volunteer her name when it did not seem to me to be called for, it did not seem to me to be critical and if needs be I could mention her name if it became important.
MR TRENGOVE: Why not mention it in that answer to the TRC questions Exhibit A, paragraph 6?
MR BELLINGAN: This concerns my personal relationship with Janine, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Ja, well at that stage the personal relationship was strained, was it not? I mean she was about to betray and destroy you and you were about to murder her?
MR BELLINGAN: Quite the contrary Mr Chairman. The personal relationship, my personal relationship with Janine and also seen through her eyes the way I perceived her to be looking at our relationship was good and at that point the thing that seemed to be motivating Janine as far as I was concerned was a kind of a self defence thing. It was certainly not to end our marriage in any way, it was certainly not to - it was to uncompromise me as it were, that is the way I saw the way Janine saw it.
MR TRENGOVE: So when you're asked about the personal relationship and you answer in paragraph 6 you say two things, "our personal relationship was very good" firstly and secondly "but I wasn't a hundred percent certain that she might not at some time in the future divulge secret information." That's the two things that you choose to say?
MR BELLINGAN: They have to be linked Mr Chairman, they are linked in reality. In terms of operational things, personal things, it may have been possible for me to switch but it was not possible for Janine to do that, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Well a relationship usually involves two people at least. From your side you perceived yourself to be under threat and you decided to murder? Do you describe that as a very good relationship with your victim?
MR BELLINGAN: It was what prompted me then Mr Chairman, was not my self defence at that stage. What prompted me then was my motivation as set out under my objectives, my political objectives.
MR TRENGOVE: I want to suggest a reason to you. When did Judy come up for this hearing?
MR BELLINGAN: Judy lives in Johannesburg.
MR TRENGOVE: I see has she moved to Johannesburg?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: I want to suggest to you that this story about the telephone conversation with Judy has been concocted since last Friday between yourself and Judy.
MR BELLINGAN: No, it's not at all true.
MR TRENGOVE: Because what it does is to enable Judy to give some corroboration to your evidence about this imminent threat?
MR BELLINGAN: Judy must come and say what she wants to say if she's called Mr Chairman. I don't control Judy White, I never have and I never will.
MR TRENGOVE: Well we'll see about that. Can you give any other rational explanation why this incident was not mentioned in your amnesty application or in the answers given to us last Friday?
MR BELLINGAN: Beside from the reasons I've given Mr Chairman I think that they are perfectly rational, I can't think of anything else.
MR TRENGOVE: Judy has repeatedly lied for you hasn't she?
MR TRENGOVE: Let's go back a bit. One of the problems you faced at the inquest was that the police had picked up the fact that you had drawn R1000 at Pietermarizburg before the murder, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And the suspicion was that you had used money to buy a plane ticket, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: No, no Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Well it was the truth at least?
MR BELLINGAN: Partially Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: No, no, no, you had drawn the R1000 to buy the plane ticket, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, I had money on me already, I still had to pay Judy White some money as well.
MR BELLINGAN: That is why I drew R1000.
MR TRENGOVE: You drew R1000 to buy a plane ticket, isn't that so?
MR BELLINGAN: A plane ticket didn't cost R1000.
MR TRENGOVE: You drew the R1000 to buy the plane ticket, that's what you told us immediately after lunch?
MR BELLINGAN: I was asked whether I drew money and it's true, I drew two lots of R500 from the autobank in Pietermaritzburg.
MR TRENGOVE: No, that's not all you said.
MR BELLINGAN: And the money some of it may have gone to the plane ticket, must have ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, are you saying you don't know whether the R1000 was used to buy the plane ticket?
MR BELLINGAN: Not those particular notes Mr Chairman, I had money on me as well, not enough for a plane ticket.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, just answer the question. Are you saying you don't know whether you used the R1000 to buy the plane ticket?
MR BELLINGAN: It's quite clear Mr Chairman that I had two financial obligations at that point, possibly three.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, just answer the question.
MR DU PLESSIS: With respect Mr Chairman, may the witness be afforded the opportunity to ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: Ja, his quite right, he should be ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on. Yes Mr Bellingan?
MR BELLINGAN: Judy already had asked me, she was aware that I had sold the house, she already said to me she wants the money that I owed her so I knew that she would be asking me for that. I took some money with me, when I decided on Thursday that I've got to get up to Gallo Manor I knew that I wouldn't have enough money with me Mr Chairman. I then went and drew some money so which portion of money I used where exactly, there were one or two other purchases I made too, perhaps even some with my credit card but the plane ticket I wouldn't use my credit card for and Judy obviously wouldn't take a credit card so it wouldn't be wrong for me to say I used some of that R1000 to buy a plane ticket but I may have used some of the money I had on me too.
MR TRENGOVE: We're going to submit that this is a typical example of how you shift into the be confusing and not specific mode, Mr Bellingan. Those questions were very easy when I asked them after lunch and you didn't realise their significance, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: I don't see the connection Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Well shall I rerun the questions I asked you after lunch, how did you pay for your plane ticket?
MR BELLINGAN: It's not incorrect to say ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: Just answer the question, just answer the question. How did you pay for your plane ticket?
MR TRENGOVE: Where did you get the cash?
MR BELLINGAN: Amongst other places from the autobank.
MR TRENGOVE: That's not the question you gave after lunch.
MR BELLINGAN: Well I did draw money at the autobank.
MR TRENGOVE: That's not the answer you gave after lunch, I asked where did you get the cash and you said I drew the money from the autobank in Pietermaritzburg, full stop.
MR TRENGOVE: So why the ducking and diving, the answer is simple?
MR BELLINGAN: There's no ducking and diving, the answer is simple Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: But of course you couldn't give that answer to police at the time?
MR BELLINGAN: Clearly I would not have been cooperating with the police Mr Chairman, the investigating officer.
MR TRENGOVE: Just answer the question. On this specific issue, you couldn't give that answer to the police at the time?
MR BELLINGAN: I never cooperated at all Mr Chairman with the police in telling the truth.
MR TRENGOVE: Why don't you just answer the question? Confine yourself to this issue. You couldn't tell the police the truth on this issue i.e. what you did with the R1000?
MR BELLINGAN: Most definitely I couldn't Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: So you lied to them?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: What did you tell them?
MR BELLINGAN: Obviously that I know nothing about the murder of my wife Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Be confusing, don't be specific. Come back to the question, what did you tell them? They knew about the R1000 correct? They discovered it.
MR BELLINGAN: I'm referring to the Saturday evening when I met the investigating officer for the first time Mr Chairman. Most definitely he did not know that. They only uncovered that at a much later stage.
MR TRENGOVE: And when they did they asked you about it, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: It may have been asked to me in my warning statement, I can't recall exactly when it was first brought up Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes I'm not particularly interested, I'm not asking you today when it was that they asked you, I said when they discovered the R1000 they asked you about it, do you remember that?
MR BELLINGAN: No I don't remember that because when they discovered it and when and who asked me I don't recall, it may have been at the inquest, for the first time, I don't remember.
MR TRENGOVE: Let me make it quite clear if I have to do so again. I'm at the moment not interested in the date that this happened. What I am putting to you and want to suggest to you, it's absolutely clear what I'm putting to you. After they had discovered that you had drawn R1000 from the ATM, they asked you what you had done with the money, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, either the police or the State Advocate, I was asked that, yes.
MR TRENGOVE: And what was your answer?
MR BELLINGAN: That I recall saying that I gave it to Judy White.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes and that was a lie?
MR TRENGOVE: It was the truth was it?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: I see but a different truth from the one that you repeated twice this afternoon under oath because you told us you used it to buy the plane ticket?
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, it's part of the same answer.
MR TRENGOVE: So you told the police the truth on this issue.
MR BELLINGAN: In regard to Judy White.
MR TRENGOVE: In regard to what you did with the R1000 you told the police the truth?
MR BELLINGAN: Now I say Mr Chairman, some of these things it was impossible to cover up, how would I possibly approached Judy White and say please don't say anything about the money or please say something about it?
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, answer the question. When the police ask you what have you done, what did you do with the R1000 you say you gave them a truthful answer, is that what you're saying?
MR BELLINGAN: It is truthful that I gave money to Judy White.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, answer the question. When the police asked you what did you do with the R1000 you say your answer was truthful?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, it is true the part about giving money to Judy White, I don't recall who asked me for the first time. The advocate keeps insisting to make me perhaps appear argumentative or something that the police asked me after they had discovered this but it wasn't like that, the police never approached me each and every time they had a query, in fact the investigating officer was very wary.
MR TRENGOVE: What question are you answering now?
MR BELLINGAN: I'm trying to explain that I'm not trying to appear evasive over here, it's just that you keep saying to me when did the police ask you this.
MR TRENGOVE: No, no, I did not ask that once. I did not ask that once Mr Bellingan.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, with respect, the answer Mr Bellingan gave was clear. He said that part of the money that he had on him was used for the plane ticket. Part of the R1000 was used for the plane ticket. Now if part of that was used Mr Chairman, the whole R1000 couldn't have been given to Judy White. Now the question was asked then apparently by the police what happened to the money and he said that he told the truth by saying that the money was given to Judy White. Now with respect Mr Chairman, the way the questions are framed by trying to push Mr Bellingan into a situation where it's a yes or no every time, a white or black, whereas we know that part of the money was used for one purpose and part of the money was used for another purpose is unfair towards the witness, with respect Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: No, no Mr Du Plessis, it's relatively simple matter. Mr Bellingan is being asked whether he was telling the truth when he told the police that the money he had withdrawn from the auto teller was used to pay his sister, that's really the issue and perhaps you should ...[intervention]
MR DU PLESSIS: What is the question Mr Chairman, was the whole R1000 used to pay Judy White or was some of the money used to pay to Judy White, that's the point I'm trying to make Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes well I don't see the difficulty really. Mr Bellingan would you just try and concentrate on the question and answer it directly? It will save a lot of time. Mr Trengove if you want to pursue the matter please do that.
MR TRENGOVE: Will you please go to the applicant's bundle 3.1? Page 60. What is that document Mr Bellingan?
MR BELLINGAN: It's a warning statement which the investigating officer or this particular page is a series of questions asked to me, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: It is really a part of a warning statement, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: There's the formal part which went through the normal formalities of which we're aware and after you had been warned of your rights certain questions were put to you and they are recorded from page 60 and then your answers follow in handwriting after four pages of questions, is that correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: So this is a question and answer session between yourself and the investigating officer?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Do you remember the occasion?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes I do Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Please read question 8.
MR BELLINGAN: "Did you draw money on Friday the 20th September 1991 in Pietermaritzburg and how much did you draw?"
MR TRENGOVE: And the answer to that question?
MR BELLINGAN: I - supposed to read: "I drew money, I drew two lots of R500, my bank statements will show me."
MR TRENGOVE: That answer is true, correct? Or was true?
MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: Question 9 reads: "What did you do with the money you drew?"
MR TRENGOVE: Yes and your answer?
MR BELLINGAN: Question 9: "I gave it all to my sister."
MR TRENGOVE: Is that answer true?
MR BELLINGAN: That is not true Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You lied to the police?
MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And then Judy supported that line, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: I don't know what Judy did or didn't do Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: She said in the inquest - have a look at our bundle, bundle 5 page 21.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I just mention that in respect of that bundle we were provided with one copy which is obviously a copy that is used by the witness so I have not had the opportunity of being provided with a bundle.
MR TRENGOVE: My learned friend should certainly have one and the witness should have his own.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright, it looks like there is one for you.
MR TRENGOVE: I beg your pardon it's not page 21 but page 7, I beg your pardon. On that page she was giving evidence at the inquest and from the middle of the page the evidence is given as follows
"On the Saturday morning when you picked up Mr Bellingan did he give you any money?"
"Can you recall what amount it was?"
"I actually do not remember the exact amount because I did not count it out, it was between R500 and R1000."
"What was the purpose of him handing this money to you?"
"He owed me some money from a couple of years previously."
"It was about R2500."
"When did he borrow it from you?"
"1987? Did you have any idea as to what his financial position was at that stage?"
"Can you recall why you lent him the money in 1987?"
"Well he was busy doing some building operations and he needed a few extra rand and I did not exactly need it at the time."
She lied to support your lie didn't she?
MR BELLINGAN: No, that is true Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Oh I see, so you had another R1000 in your pocket when you drew that money from the ATM?
MR BELLINGAN: No, that's not true Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: What is the truth then Mr Bellingan?
MR BELLINGAN: I gave Judy White the money that I had left Mr Chairman after I'd done the things that I did. I owed Judy White money, it is as she says over here that she had lent me some money. It was a little more complicated than that in the sense that I was busy with the building operation, Judy had some jewellery that she was not using, she wanted to change it or get more modern jewellery or whatever and then I said to her look, I've got a friend, let him get rid of it for you and then at the time I said to her would you mind if I just borrow this money and in fact the money that she lent me was from the proceeds of the sale of the jewellery. It was in 1987, it was because I needed it for the building operation Mr Chairman and there is no lie here at all Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: How much money did you give her?
MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: How much money of the R1000 did you have left?
MR BELLINGAN: Of all the money that I had left on me Mr Chairman I had possibly around R500 left on me.
MR TRENGOVE: Did you give all of it to Judy?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes I did Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: I see so it was when she said it was between R500 and R1000 she was mistaken, it was only R500 at most.
MR BELLINGAN: It may have been more than R500, I don't exactly recall Mr Chairman, it was the Saturday morning after the incident.
MR TRENGOVE: And it left you without any money correct?
MR BELLINGAN: I think so Mr Chairman probably besides loose small change.
MR TRENGOVE: Even though you still had to come back to Johannesburg, pick up your car, pay for the parking and so on?
MR BELLINGAN: I never spent any more money after that Mr Chairman, after ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: You didn't ...[indistinct] the money?
MR BELLINGAN: I didn't pay for the parking ticket.
MR TRENGOVE: You didn't realise then that you would receive - of course, you were the murderer, so you may well have realised it, things were going to take a dramatic turn? Are you saying that you realised then that you wouldn't be needing any more money because someone else would fetch your car at the airport?
MR BELLINGAN: Somebody else did collect my car at the airport.
MR TRENGOVE: No, I'm not asking you whether somebody else did, of course somebody else did. I'm asking whether you realised that when you gave the money to Judy that you wouldn't be needing the money any more because someone else would fetch your car at the airport?
MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall what I thought about that. I don't have a recollection about that.
MR TRENGOVE: The second issue that was raised with Judy is that you know that amongst the documents Janine had hidden away - let's start at the beginning. You know that Janine had hidden away Numsa documents? You know that today?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: At the time of the murder those documents were hidden away in her office, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And the police found it there?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And amongst those documents was a form that was filled in for the transfer of money from the Nicholas Umsa account to Judy's account?
MR BELLINGAN: The form was a transfer form. The purpose of filling it in by myself was not to transfer money to Judy White but I'm aware of the document and I know about it.
MR TRENGOVE: Why did you fill it in?
MR BELLINGAN: Janine had wanted me Mr Chairman, to settle this money that I owed Judy. She wanted me to settle it and she was insistent that I should get rid of my overdraft, settle these debts and she persuaded me to utilise some of the money. I never intended to utilise some of it and I never did Mr Chairman. I filled it in simply to keep her happy at the time.
MR TRENGOVE: To keep Judy happy?
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, Janine.
MR TRENGOVE: I see so she just ...[intervention]
MR BELLINGAN: Judy White knew nothing about this.
MR TRENGOVE: Janine persuaded you to fill out a form for the transfer of money from the Nicholas Umsa account to your sister Judy?
MR BELLINGAN: She persuaded me to settle the debit, to utilise the Numsa money to settle the debt. I never did.
MR TRENGOVE: But to keep her happy you filled out the form and signed it?
MR BELLINGAN: I eventually decided to do that, yes.
MR TRENGOVE: And gave her the form or what did you do with it?
MR BELLINGAN: No I didn't give her the form, I took it and put it in my briefcase, I had no intention whatsoever of transferring the money, Mr Chairman. There was no such money transferred.
MR TRENGOVE: I see, this is a strange way of satisfying your wife's insistence, to fill out a form and sign it but then to put it in your briefcase. How would she know about it if you filled it out and signed it and put it in your briefcase, how would it satisfy her demand?
MR BELLINGAN: She saw me do it Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: I see, so you said to her "okay, I will transfer money to Judy's account out of the Umsa account, here look, I'm filling out the form" and you filled out the form and you signed it?
MR BELLINGAN: No not immediately, I got a form at Nedbank and at a later stage she said well have you done it and I pulled the form out, filled it in in front of her and she seemed content and when she left the table I just took it and put it in my briefcase.
MR TRENGOVE: And then she stole that form to prove that you were involved in fraudulent transactions?
MR BELLINGAN: I presume she removed it from my briefcase Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Having been the one who suggested the idea to you in the first place, not suggested, insisted on that in the first place?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: We'll get back to that but on that form was for a transfer to Judy's account at the Cascade Branch of Nedbank, is it in Pietermaritzburg?
MR BELLINGAN: Pietermaritzburg Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Do you know that when Judy was first approached by the investigating officer and asked whether she had a Nedbank account at the Cascade branch, she denied that she did?
MR BELLINGAN: I doubt that very much Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Well, that's what the investigating officer says.
MR BELLINGAN: I doubt that too Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman may I just make sure, I've gone through everything that I have, I don't doubt for a minute that he said that, I just want a specific reference to that if it's possible or is he ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: You can read his investigation diary and he has a note of it there and it was put to Judy at the inquest.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes I just wanted to make sure if that's the case or if he is going to be called as a witness by ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: No, my learned friend is calling him, as he's already told us and we will on that occasion ask him to confirm this evidence. I don't know what's so unusual if I put to him something that the investigating officer has said.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright go ahead?
MR BELLINGAN: Judy White had an account at the Cascades branch Mr Chairman. I knew about it and I'm dead certain that the investigating officer knew about it. I know for a fact that he checked it out too.
MR TRENGOVE: He ultimately did, of course, but she initially tried to get away with a lie?
MR BELLINGAN: I doubt that very much Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Lying for you Mr Bellingan.
MR BELLINGAN: That is definitely incorrect.
MR TRENGOVE: Then could you refer back to our bundle 5, Judy's evidence at the inquest. This time to page 21. If you turn back you'll see, Judy was being examined by your lawyer, is that correct? Mr Leischer?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And then at page 21, from about line 9, she gave the following evidence
"Your brother, does he cry easily?"
"Difficult question, I do not think so."
"And on the day when he heard the news?"
Now was that evidence true Mr Bellingan?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You broke down when you got the news, what news?
MR BELLINGAN: That Janine was dead.
MR TRENGOVE: Well what do you mean you got your news, you made the news, you didn't have to get it?
MR BELLINGAN: Full realisation hit me then Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: What was it ...[intervention]
MR BELLINGAN: In my personal capacity I felt the shock of what I had done.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan that's absurd, how can you feel shocked in your personal capacity and not in your official capacity?
MR BELLINGAN: Until that time Mr Chairman I had been functioning pretty much on automatic like I would have at any other operation.
MR TRENGOVE: But you knew exactly what news was coming, it wasn't a shock or a surprise to you?
MR BELLINGAN: Nonetheless Mr Chairman it effected me.
MR TRENGOVE: It was just a - it was - if it was true it was a pretence?
MR BELLINGAN: It was no pretence Mr Chairman and it was perhaps then an opportunity for me to express my emotions. In the spirit of openness over here, I knew very well what I had done, I was not able ...[inaudible]
MR TRENGOVE: ...[inaudible] to express your emotions, do you mean grief?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: About what you had just done?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Why did it grieve you, you had chosen to do it?
MR BELLINGAN: I had chosen to do it Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And you were still then and are still today convinced that you had done the right thing?
MR BELLINGAN: In terms of what needed to be done, yes Mr Chairman. In terms of the fact that I had a loving relationship with Janine at the time, no.
MR TRENGOVE: There was another bit of evidence, you made a couple of mistakes that night of the murder. The worse of all was the shoes that you left behind, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: The Salvatore shoes?
MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Fancy shoes. Unusual shoes, correct? Expensive shoes.
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: R400 a pair shoes?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Not the kind of shoes that policemen at that time could ordinarily afford?
MR BELLINGAN: It's not strictly speaking true Mr Chairman but for the sake of argument yes.
MR TRENGOVE: What was your take home pay at the time?
MR TRENGOVE: Take home pay. R1200 per month?
MR BELLINGAN: The only salary advice I could find Mr Chairman is from August 1990 if that is of any help if I should ...[intervention]
MR BELLINGAN: My ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: Just tell us what the take home pay is, I'm not interested in the gross and the deductions and so on.
MR TRENGOVE: R1700 per month is that correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: R400 would have been almost a quarter of your monthly salary - of your take home pay, sorry.
MR BELLINGAN: From the South African Police, yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes. Now on the night in question you wore these shoes for the trip from Natal to Johannesburg?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And these were the shoes that you took off and left in the lounge?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, the kitchen and the lounge were right next to each other.
MR TRENGOVE: And forgot them there?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And that was what first put the police onto you?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Some of your colleagues in Natal had noticed the fancy shoes and could testify to the fact that you had worn then during the course in Pietermartizburg?
MR BELLINGAN: In fact Mr Chairman of 20 colleagues that were asked that saw me in my lectures that I gave there, most of them said I was wearing other shoes. One who as I saw it never really fitted in too well, he is the one, the one and only who said that I had on that pair of shoes.
MR TRENGOVE: He happened to be the truthful witness though?
MR BELLINGAN: That's true Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: Ja, that's true and that was a critical bit of evidence against you?
MR TRENGOVE: The prosecution called forensic evidence which proved that it was your shoes?
MR BELLINGAN: That is, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Now your version at the time was "No, no, no, it's not my shoes you found in the lounge" - sorry, tell me what your version was?
MR BELLINGAN: At which time Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Well did it vary, did it shift?
MR TRENGOVE: What was it initially?
MR BELLINGAN: At the time of my warning statement was the first time that I was called upon to explain the shoes.
MR BELLINGAN: And I was vague, tried not to give Willie Steyn information which he could dead end.
MR TRENGOVE: You ultimately pretended still to have your original pair of Salvatore shoes, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: I don't think so in the warning statement, I don't think that was ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: You got a new pair and pretended that those were still the original pair that you had.
MR BELLINGAN: No, I didn't get a new pair.
MR TRENGOVE: Didn't you have a new pair at a later stage and pretend that those were still the original pair? Correct?
MR BELLINGAN: No it's not correct Mr Chairman, I did get another pair.
MR TRENGOVE: Did you not pretend that that second pair was in fact your old pair that you still had to prove that the pair in the lounge was not yours?
MR BELLINGAN: In answering the question Mr Chairman, I'll have to explain the dilemma I was faced with and that is that at the inquest I had the opportunity to use the story of the second pair of Salvatore shoes. I had that opportunity, my problem is that Judy White bought that pair of shoes for me so to say so and to call those questions about that involve her Mr Chairman in something that on the face of it would, had Willie Steyn found out, would look odd, to look funny. I had a problem with it, I had a dilemma with it. So once again at the inquest I was vague about it and I most definitely didn't tell them that Judy White bought it for me at the inquest.
I was very vague about the shoes.
MR TRENGOVE: But your later version was that Judy had given you that second pair?
MR BELLINGAN: That's the true version
MR TRENGOVE: Ultimately when it was proven that that couldn't be the old pair because the police were able to prove through remarkable detective work that this pair must have been bought for cash at Sandton, after the murder. Did you own up and then said that "Judy had given me this pair" correct?
MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Is it true that Judy had given you that pair?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: In order to protect your false alibi?
MR TRENGOVE: Just as a consolation then or why?
MR BELLINGAN: She would be the right one to ask about that.
MR TRENGOVE: No, I'm asking you. Do you have any idea why she gave you a second pair of blue Salvatore shoes? Did you have any sentimental association with the shoes that you wore the night that you went to murder your wife?
MR BELLINGAN: They were very nice shoes Mr Chairman but there was most definitely no sentimental ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: By now they must have had a macabre association, Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: For me Mr Chairman?
MR TRENGOVE: Yes, they were the shoes you wore when you went to murder your wife in the first place and they were secondly one of the most important evidence against you for the murder of your wife.
MR BELLINGAN: They became...[intervention]
MR BELLINGAN: Particularly important.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes, they were at all times critically important, they were the first piece of obvious evidence on the scene which suggested that you had been the culprit, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: I think so Mr Chairman, yes.
MR TRENGOVE: Now your sister then gives you a second pair of the same shoes. What innocent intent could she have had?
To remind you of the murder or to remind you of the prosecution against you?
MR BELLINGAN: None of those Mr Chairman, I'm certain of that.
MR TRENGOVE: I see, well I'm suggesting to you that it was another instance where Judy collaborated with you in your false alibi.
MR BELLINGAN: If she had Mr Chairman I most certainly would not have been prepared to disclose that. She brought those shoes for me, I concede it looks odd. At no stage did I ask Judy White to collaborate anything, she met me in Pietermaritzburg, I gave her money and ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: Well the long and the short of it, she bought you the shoes and you then used them in an attempt to protect your false alibi.
MR BELLINGAN: As I've explained I had a dilemma about it.
MR BELLINGAN: It's not clear prior to the trial I was trying to utilise Judy per sé.
MR TRENGOVE: Not Judy, the shoes.
MR BELLINGAN: The shoes, it's true I used the opportunity Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Is she an older sister?
CHAIRPERSON: Is she older than you?
MR BELLINGAN: She's older than me Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: You're the only two children?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And you see this statement that Judy made, that you say Judy made to you that Thursday that Janine had told her that she was going to sink the Security Branch by making these disclosures is not something that Judy has ever mentioned in any of the proceedings on this case or in the course of the investigation of the case?
MR TRENGOVE: Have you any idea why she's kept quiet about it?
MR BELLINGAN: I've asked Judy to say absolutely nothing pertaining to my work, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: No but when the police investigated the murder of her sister-in-law and asked her all sorts of questions and she gave lots of answers, the most critical bit of evidence if your application here is true would have been for her to say "you know, two days before the murder, in fact the day before the murder, my sister-in-law, the deceased, told me that she intended to destroy the Security Branch." Do you agree with me?
MR BELLINGAN: I specifically asked Judy to say absolutely nothing about my work, Mr Chairman and she most definitely wouldn't have assisted the Security Branch in anything in any case Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: But she - I'm quite sure that you told her not to say anything but that is my point not yours.
MR BELLINGAN: No, those were not my words Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: I'm suggesting that she lied for you?
MR BELLINGAN: Those are not my words and she didn't lie for me.
MR TRENGOVE: I'm suggesting that she lied for you. If this evidence was true, this bit about a call from Janine to her and of her call to you, that would have been the first thing that an honest witness would have told the police, the inquest court and the trial court?
MR BELLINGAN: Judy White never believed that I was responsible for the murder of Janine Mr Chairman. I know that she thought the Security Branch did it and I told her to shut up and not say anything about that, about her suspicions.
MR TRENGOVE: Let me show you again the evidence that she gave at the inquest. In our bundle 5 firstly at page 11, do you have it? Page 11, down the page where Mr Meiring first comes in and he says
"Mrs Bellingan, how did you get along with her?"
"We did not see eye to eye on most things"
"Do you have any knowledge of how their married life was?"
"Well only from which she used to say to me on the telephone and what I used to hear, I can only presume it was not hunky dory all the time."
Now that is an occasion on which an honest witness would have said:
"And you know what her last words to me where? 'I intend to destroy the Security Branch by disclosing all my husband's secrets.'"
MR BELLINGAN: Perhaps Mr Chairman on the other hand Judy White was also a somewhat intimidated witness at that point in time.
MR TRENGOVE: Have a look at page 20, intimidated by whom?
MR BELLINGAN: Not only by me Mr Chairman. She had various break ins at her house, she was followed around.
MR TRENGOVE: Have a look at page 20 where your counsel examines her so it's a sympathetic examination"
"Mrs White, Mrs Bellingan did she complain a lot?"
"Yes to me and to friends and family."
"Mostly about her marriage and her jobs"
"So it was not just only about her marriage that she complained?"
"No a lot, a lot of it was her job that she had."
"Would you consider her to be neurotic?"
"Well she never had a good word to say about anything and when there was problems between my brother and her she seemed to think that she had to be rude to the rest of the family and she had never - we would visit and she would not sit in the lounge, she would get off, other places, she would sit in the car when they came to visit me, she would not come into the house."
"So she had much animosity to your family as alleged your brother had to hers?"
Now again when she describes her complaints inter alia about the marriage, an honest witness would have said "And you know how bad it was in order to get her husband out of the security police she threatened the day before her murder to destroy the whole organisation to which he devoted his life."
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman as I've explained, I specifically told Judy to not mention anything about my work and not mention anything about Janine's connection in regard thereto and also it was a question that Judy had got the message by then that she was not to do that. It was not a simple matter I could just tell Judy not to. She had to get the message and she did get the message that she was not to do that.
MR TRENGOVE: Ja exactly, she was prepared to lie for you because you wanted her to?
MR BELLINGAN: I think that she feared for her life Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Can you give any explanation why this vital bit of evidence of Judy's and of yourself of the two telephone conversations has never been disclosed anywhere to anybody at any time? Even in your amnesty application?
MR BELLINGAN: I can speak for myself Mr Chairman when I say my answer previously refers, I've given the answer before.
MR TRENGOVE: No, no, just give it to me again, I can't remember what it was. Why has this vital bit of information that both you and Judy and corroborate not been given to anybody and any time?
MR BELLINGAN: I don't mind repeating the answer Mr Chairman. It is so that I never thought that it was so necessary to talk about the telephone conversation with Judy and with Janine in my amnesty application because I could fill in the Committee later. It's also so that I did not particularly want to just mention Judy's name for the sake of mentioning it, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And particularly in this application where the central issue from the beginning has been in essence why did you kill your wife? You failed to disclose those two bits. Firstly, Judy's call which persuaded you to murder and then your conversation with Janine which sealed her fate. You failed to mention that?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, it would have been the wrong thing to do to mention Judy's name in a document that I did not know precisely in whose hands this document would be, in whose hands the amnesty applications would go. It was the wrong thing to do Mr Chairman, just simply expose her like that.
MR TRENGOVE: Expose to what or whom?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman the business that I was involved in, the people that I worked with, the people that - who operated again, it was a hostile environment that we operated in. My colleagues are amnesty applicants in many cases. There was a lot of highly sensitive things on the go Mr Chairman. There's a lot of things which cause me to know that it would have been reckless to just put Judy's name in a document.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, that answer is absurd.
MR BELLINGAN: For such ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: That answer is absurd.
MR BELLINGAN: For something like that.
MR TRENGOVE: Your amnesty application ...[intervention]
MR BELLINGAN: ...[indistinct] my amnesty application and I would stand by it without that even.
MR TRENGOVE: The document we're talking about is the 26th November 1997, it's not back in the apartheid days, it's November '97 in the first place and secondly Mr Bellingan, who on earth would have any motive to do any harm to Judy simply because she backed up your version that this was a politically motivated killing?
MR BELLINGAN: I haven't heard Judy say that this was a politically motivated killing at all, Mr Chairman, in fact Judy has been of the opinion that it was not me at all who had anything to do with this.
MR TRENGOVE: When did you first admit to Judy that you were the murderer?
MR BELLINGAN: Judy heard about it Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: When did you first admit to Judy that you were the murderer?
MR BELLINGAN: Quite recently Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: I would also like to ask you a few questions about your account of how you travelled to Johannesburg and back for the murder because it seems to us a very strange account. Here is the Captain of the Security Police whose now decided to murder his wife for the sake of the country and you decide to do that by flying to Johannesburg overnight, killing her and coming back and how does the professional security operative on this mission of assassination get to his target? He hitch hikes. Isn't it an absurd suggestion?
MR BELLINGAN: Not at all Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You had a plane to catch, you say you hitchhiked from Pietermartizburg to Durban?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Hitchhiking is particularly in the '90's is a very, very unreliable mode of travel if one has a plane to catch to kill your wife?
MR BELLINGAN: The plane, the time was to be arranged by me at the airport Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: I beg your pardon, time?
MR BELLINGAN: The time of departure was not decided at that point in time Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: But you - so you hitched to the airport, in fact you had to get two lifts to get to the airport?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You set out on this mission hitching to your target without a flight booking?
MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You didn't know there were flights and even if there were you didn't know whether they had seats available?
MR BELLINGAN: There were flights Mr Chairman, there would be seats available.
MR TRENGOVE: You didn't know whether there was - I beg your pardon?
MR BELLINGAN: There were flights, there would be seats available.
MR TRENGOVE: Why? This is a Friday night, Durban to Jo'burg, those flights are packed?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I've flown many, many times between Durban and Jo'burg. For that matter when I was at school I hitchhiked many times as well.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, on Friday night the Durban/Jo'burg flights are packed, that's the time of the week in which those flights are at their busiest. You have an important mission and you hitchhike off without a booking?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Not the kind of professional you would of have - you were organised, planned, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: The opportunity presented itself Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: If there was no room for you on any flight you would have just have hitched back to Pietermaritzburg?
MR BELLINGAN: No, I knew I'd get a flight.
MR TRENGOVE: Do you remember the detail of the lifts that you got, what kind of car and who were the people in the car? You described them yesterday and we'll come back to them later in that note from which you gave the evidence, can you remember?
MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: A light coloured Golf or a dark coloured Combi or whatever, two males?
MR TRENGOVE: And you remember your conversations with them?
MR BELLINGAN: I didn't say very much Mr Chairman, I tried to be as inconspicuous as I could.
MR TRENGOVE: Answer the question, do you remember your conversations with them as meagre as it was?
MR TRENGOVE: Well you gave some evidence about what they said and what I said yesterday, do you not remember that?
MR BELLINGAN: In terms of explaining myself to them, where I was going etcetera, etcetera. It did take place yes.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes, we'll come back to that. You remember that kind of detail but you can't remember the false name that you travelled under?
MR TRENGOVE: Why not? Have you ever been on an assassination mission before?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman I've used many, many different false names.
MR TRENGOVE: But not for assassination ...[intervention]
MR BELLINGAN: I never used a false name with which I had a deep cover, I used an arbitrary one and at many times before, I don't remember.
MR TRENGOVE: You'd never been on a mission to assassinate your wife or anybody else before?
MR BELLINGAN: It's not something I'd want to remember Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: This is an unique experience in your life?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: It was a matter of life and death to you that your flight that night should not be picked up, not be detectable?
MR BELLINGAN: It was very important, yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You picked a name to conceal your identity but you can't remember it today?
MR BELLINGAN: I don't remember the name Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: I don't remember the name Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You get to the airport and you buy a return ticket. At what time did you depart, what was the departure time of your flight?
MR BELLINGAN: If I remember correctly Mr Chairman, it was around 8 o'clock.
MR TRENGOVE: So that would have brought you to Johannesburg Airport at just after 9?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Early evening in other words?
MR BELLINGAN: It's about an hours flight. Some of the bigger planes 15 minutes.
MR TRENGOVE: That explains why when you got home lights were still on and people were not yet asleep, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And the next morning you took the first flight back, I think you said it was at 6 o'clock, was it?
MR BELLINGAN: It was an early morning flight.
MR TRENGOVE: Do you remember how early?
MR BELLINGAN: It was early Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: This time, time was of the essence, you had an alibi to close, correct? Correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You had to get to Pietermaritzburg in a hurry?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: So what time did your flight leave?
MR BELLINGAN: I think it was 6 o'clock in the morning, round about there Mr Chairman, it was early in the morning.
MR TRENGOVE: That would have got you to Durban at just after 7?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And then you hitched back to 'Maritzburg?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Now time is of the essence, it's early morning, it's a Saturday morning and you rely on your hitchhiking ability to close your alibi?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Isn't that absurd that you would place your future on the line, your freedom on the line, your exposure as a murderer on the line on the risk that you might not get two lifts to Pietermaritzburg?
MR BELLINGAN: I would get two lifts to Pietermaritzburg Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And you meet Judy in Pietermaritzburg. What time did you meet her?
MR TRENGOVE: She said 9, 9.15, is that correct?
MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.
MR TRENGOVE: Now let me tell you of the difficulty of that version. Firstly, there was no 8 o'clock flight from Durban to Johannesburg that night, can you explain that?
MR BELLINGAN: I took a flight around that time Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: No, there wasn't one so you couldn't have.
MR BELLINGAN: I did Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: There was a 7 o'clock flight but you wouldn't have made that one because you only left Pietermartizburg at around 6 o'clock if I remember your evidence correctly? Ja and you couldn't hitch hike to the Durban airport in time to buy a ticket and board a 7 o'clock flight?
MR BELLINGAN: I took the very first flight available to me when I got to the airport Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: I know you say that but you also said that it was a flight at about 8 o'clock. I'm suggesting to you that that is false? There was a 7 o'clock flight which you wouldn't have made and the next flight was only at 20 to eleven which would have brought you in Johannesburg at just before midnight? Completely different scenario to the one that you sketch?
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I just enquire? I have no difficulty with what Mr Trengove is putting, I'm just not sure, I didn't check up myself what airlines were available at that time and what the position was. I don't know ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: We'll present the evidence in that regard and I'm putting my case to the witness.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you that is all I wanted to know.
MR TRENGOVE: My learned friend will check up on that.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes I'm quite sure we can take Mr Trengove's ...[intervention]
MR DU PLESSIS: I just wanted to make sure if there was.
CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible], yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Sheffer - Mr Bellingan, what do you say to that contradiction of your version?
...[inaudible] and there's another difficulty, Mr Bellingan. The first flight back on the Saturday morning was an 8 o'clock flight?
MR BELLINGAN: I flew back on the first available flight on the Saturday morning Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Might it have been the 8 o'clock flight because that was the first one we're told.
MR BELLINGAN: No it was earlier than that.
MR TRENGOVE: Well we were told it was 8 o'clock, what do you say to that? It means your version is false. It means your evidence is false and Judy's evidence is false, correct?
MR TRENGOVE: If it were an 8 o'clock flight it wouldn't have been in time to get you to Pietermaritzburg, downtown Pietermartizburg at quarter past 9, that's impossible.
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I did not have a watch on me.
The evidence I gave is correct, it's the first available flight ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, for a security policeman that's such a naive answer Mr Bellingan. You and Judy have both told repeated tribunals, a number of tribunals that you met in Pietermaritzburg at 9.15 that Saturday morning. I'm telling you that it was impossible to get to Pietermartizburg at that time via SAA?
MR BELLINGAN: I met Judy Saturday morning in Pietermaritzburg, Mr Chairman. If I've had to reconstruct the times then I've done it to the best of my ability Mr Chairman, that is the truth of the matter, flew to Johannesburg to Jan Smuts Airport and I flew back Mr Chairman and I met Judy in Pietermaritzburg and ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: Are you suggesting that you might have been wrong in the time that you and Judy met?
MR BELLINGAN: I might have been wrong?
MR TRENGOVE: Well I'm asking you, how are you trying to slip out of this apparent contradiction of your version?
MR BELLINGAN: There's been so much evidence about it Mr Chairman in the past and not having a watch I have to rely upon what I've heard Mr Chairman and the best evidence I heard was that it was around 9 - 9.15.
MR TRENGOVE: Not having a watch. A security policeman who now says on the night I murdered my wife I'm afraid I didn't have a watch so all of my evidence over all of these years about the times that things happened is unreliable and should be ignored?
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, the opportunity presented itself, I did not make any plans to, when I went down to Pietermartizburg, to do this operation. The opportunity presented itself then and I made do to the best of my ability with what I had at the time, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Well it's quite easy, what was the appointed time for your and Judy's meeting in Pietermartizburg? What was the agreed time?
MR BELLINGAN: It was 9 o'clock Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And did you make the agreed time?
MR BELLINGAN: I may have been a bit late.
MR TRENGOVE: No, we're talking of 9, 9.15, I'm not talking of a couple of minutes, were you substantially on time?
MR TRENGOVE: And she did too, she also told the inquest court on oath that you met her 9, 9.15? But that evidence, your evidence and hers must have been false if in fact you flew from Johannesburg via Durban that morning?
MR BELLINGAN: I met Judy at the agree place Mr Chairman, the time I'm not hundred percent certain of. If she says 9, 9.15 then it was 9, 915.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes and it also then means your evidence is false?
MR BELLINGAN: My evidence previously was false Mr Chairman, not before this Committee.
MR TRENGOVE: No, then your evidence that you flew from Johannesburg that morning and yet made a 9 o'clock appointment in Pietermartizburg substantially on time is false?
MR BELLINGAN: I can tell you Mr Bellingan, I don't know how you got to Johannesburg and back the night you murdered your wife but there is a booking in the name of a Mr H. Sheffer, paid for in cash which departed on the Friday evening at 7 o'clock and returned the Saturday morning at 8 o'clock on the first flight. It seems suspiciously as if you were the H. Sheffer. The only difficulty is that it would mean that both you and Judy have been lying about the time you arrived in Pietermaritzburg?
MR BELLINGAN: I have no comment Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And what's more the lie would fit in snugly with the remainder of your evidence. Do you remember what you and Judy both said, you first did in Pietermaritzburg? A bit of shopping you said, both of you?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Unspecified generic shopping and then arrived at your parents' place at half past 10 - 11. I want to suggest to you there never was any shopping, you arrived from Jo'burg in Pietermartizburg at half past 10, 11 but you and Judy both conspired to lie to complete that hole in the alibi, to fill the hole in the alibi.
MR BELLINGAN: The problem is that we went to Judy's house in Pietermartizburg prior to going to my parents Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: No that could be but the shopping ...[intervention]
MR BELLINGAN: There are witnesses to corroborate that.
MR TRENGOVE: No, that might be Mr Bellingan but the shopping evidence filled up the gap?
MR BELLINGAN: There was shopping Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes that's what both of you say.
MR BELLINGAN: It was not a great deal of shopping.
MR TRENGOVE: That's what both of you say, we met at 9, 9.15 ...[intervention]
MR BELLINGAN: If I remember correctly I didn't even go into the shops at all.
MR TRENGOVE: I know you didn't because you were desperately rushing from Johannesburg?
MR BELLINGAN: I sat in the car Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: To Pietermaritzburg, to create an alibi. You almost made it but you had a few hours unaccounted for and Judy agreed to lie for you, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: I did what I've testified before this Committee that I did, perhaps Judy White can be called upon as to her perspective of things Mr Chairman. I can't speak for Judy White, I don't know.
MR TRENGOVE: The last of the four bits of evidence was your conversation with Janine on the Friday when she said to you that you should not concern yourself because she knew what she was doing, do you remember that?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: When did that telephone conversation take place?
MR BELLINGAN: On Friday morning Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You told her that you were coming back that night correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: This is to trick her to leave off the latch and leave the key under the mat?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: So that you could murder her?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And then in the middle of this conversation of "Darling how are you and how are the kids and I'm coming back tonight" she says "Oh Mike, don't concern yourself, I know what I'm doing" correct? That's your evidence?
MR BELLINGAN: It wasn't quite like that Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Well how was it? It was apropos of nothing, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, obviously Janine was aware of her conversation with Judy. She would know that Judy would have said something to me about that. She would know that very well and it was in context of that, that that remark was made to me.
MR TRENGOVE: But in your conversation her comment came apropos of nothing?
MR BELLINGAN: Janine was a very bright person Mr Chairman, that is ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: Do you know what apropos of nothing means?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes I know very well Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: In the context of the fact that I could evaluate her innuendos etcetera, etcetera, I think she could do pretty much the same with me Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: No, no, no, nothing about innuendos, you were talking about the kids, how are you and please leave a key under the mat and remember to leave the latch off, that kind of thing and she said "don't concern yourself, I know what I'm doing". Apropos of nothing?
MR BELLINGAN: No we both knew what that related to Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: I'm not asking whether you both realised what it meant, I'm asking you - I'm suggesting to you that the comment was made apropos of nothing? There was nothing in the conversation which triggered it or led to it?
MR BELLINGAN: I think it was my voice intonation.
MR TRENGOVE: Your voice intonation when you said "Hello darling and how are the kids?"?
MR BELLINGAN: Not like that Mr Chairman. I would have asked her how are things for example. She would have picked up something more in my voice than just "how are the roses" or "how are the children" or something like that.
MR TRENGOVE: And she then said, don't concern yourself, I know what I'm doing. So she raises this topic that she discussed with Janine if you have to be believed, she virtually invites you to discuss it with her, to say something about it but you say nothing?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I telephoned from the covert offices in the morning in Pietermaritzburg. The chances are that someone could have been listening, the telephone could have been tapped, the chances are that my home phone could have been tapped. It most probably was by someone else.
MR TRENGOVE: The only people who tap phones are the police, Mr Bellingan.
MR BELLINGAN: It would be completely reckless to have that kind of conversation, to encourage that kind of conversation at that point in time.
MR TRENGOVE: I didn't ask you for the explanation, I'm just asking you to confirm that she confirms this shocking news that you got from Judy in effect by saying "don't concern yourself, I know what I'm doing" and you say nothing? Correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: And you say it was the security risk that worried you?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman, plus there was a lot on my mind.
MR TRENGOVE: What was on your mind was specifically this topic that she'd just raised, that was on your mind?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: You decided to murder her for that reason?
MR BELLINGAN: No, I had already made the decision.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes, you had decided to murder her for that very reason, the one that she was now raising, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes and you didn't ask her for instance "have you already made the disclosure?"
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, I was at that stage not wanting to alert Janine to the fact that I completely disagreed with her, there was no ways I was going to change her mind.
MR TRENGOVE: Are you suggesting for one moment she thought that you might agree with this tactic?
MR TRENGOVE: Given the long history that you and she had about threats and risks of exposure. She thought you thought that she might think it's a good idea?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: I think that she felt she was doing the right thing and that I should fall in line with it and then I should get out of the Security Branch.
MR TRENGOVE: Well why not just ask her "have you done it?"
Mr Bellingan, why don't you answer?
MR BELLINGAN: I did not ask her that Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: Because I did not think it was a good idea.
MR TRENGOVE: It was vital for you to know whether she had done it or not, wasn't it?
MR BELLINGAN: She hadn't Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: It was vital for you to know whether she had done it or not, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: There's a further aspect Mr Chairman in answering the question, and that is that it was information Janine had and the fact that there was no stopping her in terms of persuading her so that even regardless of the documentation it would have been necessary to eliminate Janine, that is the way I saw it Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Don't avoid the question. Don't avoid the question, the question is do you agree with me that it was vital for you to know whether she had already made the disclosures?
MR BELLINGAN: I didn't think Janine had made the disclosures Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: It was vital for you to know whether she had or not?
MR BELLINGAN: It was important.
MR TRENGOVE: Oh, not vital? If she had made the disclosure it would have had two implications. Firstly, killing her wouldn't solve the problem, correct? You would have killed her for nothing?
MR BELLINGAN: I don't agree with that Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: But if she had already spilled the beans, gave it all to the ANC or the Vrye Weekblad or whoever, killing her might still have solved the problem you say?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, on the face of it, my list that she termed the list of hits may not have been meaningful to somebody, it was not an elaboration there of unlawful activity by the Security Branch, but those notes in conjunction with information that Janine could fill in would have been of massive importance, it would have been clear then to the reader exactly what was set out over there ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: Don't - sorry, you must - I don't intend to interrupt you, you must complete your reply.
MR TRENGOVE: Please don't obviate the question, if she'd already spilt the beans, given them the documents and all the information that she had available then the murder would have been pointless?
MR BELLINGAN: In a certain sense I can see that point Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: No, no, no, in every sense of the word and any intelligent being in your shoes on that night would have realised it?
MR BELLINGAN: I didn't believe Janine had done that Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Secondly, if she had already spilt the beans and you murdered her, you would have been the prime suspect? That's obvious, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: I think so Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Yes, so if she'd already done it, the murder would have been pointless and you would have been the prime suspect. Why didn't you ask her whether she'd done it?
MR BELLINGAN: I firmly believed that she had not Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Why, what basis was there for that belief?
MR BELLINGAN: At the time that I had the phone conversation Mr Chairman I never thought I'd be having this particular conversation where I'd have to justify what I was thinking, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: No, no, no, you remember what you thought, I'm simply asking you why did you think that? What basis was there for it?
MR BELLINGAN: I don't recall everything that led to me thinking that Mr Chairman, I was firmly under the impression that she had not ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: Because this conversation never took place, it's an utter fabrication, correct Mr Bellingan?
MR BELLINGAN: No Mr Chairman, it's not a fabrication.
MR TRENGOVE: And if she hadn't yet done it, it would have been important to you to know when she intended to do so. She was apparently being quite open to it, discussing with your sister with whom she had a hostile relationship so there's no harm in asking when do you intend doing it?
MR BELLINGAN: The chances are that the documentation was at home Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: No, no, no, you knew that her habit was to leave it with other people for safekeeping?
MR BELLINGAN: No I never said that Mr Chairman.
MR BELLINGAN: I know that Lorna Smith had some documentation which she had in August returned to Janine.
MR TRENGOVE: And you searched high and low and couldn't find it so it was obviously placed somewhere else, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: I did not look in all of the places I wanted to look in Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: But you couldn't find it, wherever you looked you couldn't find it so ...[intervention]
MR BELLINGAN: Every opportunity I had for looking but I did not satisfy myself that I'd looked through the place thoroughly, I didn't have the opportunity, Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: No that's right but I mean all the indications were that these documents had again been given to someone else for safekeeping, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: No the indications were that they would be in the house that weekend Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: So that was another problem that you had, if the documents had been placed with someone else for safekeeping, again the murder would be pointless, those documents would be revealed and exposed, the murder would trigger the exposure, correct?
MR BELLINGAN: The people may have drawn a link Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: No, no, no, I'm not suggesting that, I'm now making another point, we agreed that you would be the prime suspect and I'm not making that point any more. What I am saying is that if you murdered Janine after she had placed documents in safekeeping with a friend, her murder would have triggered the exposure of those documents because the friend would have revealed them and made them public? Or at least expose them to the police?
MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, it was necessary to eliminate Janine. She was going to make disclosures. It was more than just a question of documentation, it was the knowledge that she had, the intention that she had, her frame of mind, Mr Chairman, she was going to do that. If it was not that documentation it would have been other documentation at a later stage Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Mr Bellingan, I'm suggesting to you - I'm going to argue that this last question is one of a series of evasions. Do you want to give a proper answer to the question or is that your best shot at it?
MR BELLINGAN: I don't mind repeating it Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: No, no, no, you don't need to repeat it, I'm just asking you whether that is the best that you wish to do?
MR BELLINGAN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR TRENGOVE: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR TRENGOVE
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, just before we adjourn could I just deal with one or two matters very shortly?
The first matter that I want to deal with Mr Chairman is the fact that we have been told during the course of yesterday that Janine's diaries are available, Mr Chaskalson has undertaken to provide us with copies. I was satisfied with that and I am satisfied with that, I just want to an opportunity to have a look at those diaries. I am, however, in a difficult position that I cannot discuss it with my client and if there are any problems with the fact that the documents or the diaries have been provided to us a late stage then I will raise it. I just want to make that point and I believe Mr Chaskalson indicated to me that they will be available to me tomorrow.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well we note that. I'm quite sure that they will arrange that accordingly.
MR TRENGOVE: I seem to have brought some of the people on my side under the impression that I completed my cross-examination?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no I ...[intervention]
MR TRENGOVE: Now that is a misconception I still have much to do but I noticed that it is past 4 in the afternoon.
CHAIRPERSON: We're not under this impression.
MR DU PLESSIS: I would have been satisfied if my learned friend had finished Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, then I just want to make two points.
The first point is that insofar as, and I don't believe Mr Trengove intended to insinuate that, insofar as there may have been a perception that Mr Britz and I had possession or knowledge of the unsigned annexure of the first amnesty application when the second one was drawn because of the comparisons to the wording, I want to place on record here and now that is why I wanted to contact Mr Britz, that that is not so, we were provided with a skeleton application by Mr Bellingan, we settled the application so from - in respect of Mr Britz and I we were never in possession of that document. The first time I saw that document was in the bundles of the TRC provided to me I think a week before the pre-trial conference.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes your client seems to have said that what is being referred to as the second application is the annexure which is referred to in what has been referred to as the first?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I took it up with my learned friend and we agreed that I could place that on record, just to make everything hundred percent certain.
And then Mr Chairman, there was also testimony that certain lawyers told Mr Bellingan to lie to the Truth Commission. I just want to make it very clear that neither Mr Britz or I who started representing Mr Bellingan only in 1997, neither Mr Britz or I were ever involved in anything of that sort or any allegation of that sort.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes we would have been surprised. Otherwise - no thank you, we have noted that Mr du Plessis, certainly nothing of that has ever crossed our minds. At this stage we'll adjourn.
MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, sorry.
MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan referred to an annexure C, he referred to three tapes and the tapes were offered to you. Now Mr Chairman may I ask if you perhaps have better things to do tonight, may I request the tapes and listen to them?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no we do have better things to do and the tapes I believe are available so I'm quite sure you can gain access to them.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes we'll adjourn the proceedings at this stage until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning for the cross-examination of Mr Trengove to proceed. We're adjourned.