CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, we want to start. It's Monday morning, the 19th of April 1999. It is the continuation of the amnesty application of Mr Bellingan. The Panel and the parties are as indicated previously on the record.

We have had a slight delay in starting the proceedings this morning, due to the fact that our interpreters who like some of our other officials have left over the weekend for their homes and they have had difficulty in returning and getting the venue this morning, but although we don't have our full complement of interpreters at this stage, we are able at least to start with some of the testimony to save a bit of time. We in particular have a difficulty with the Xhosa interpreter and steps have been taken to secure the services of an interpreter to enable us to complete the testimony of the last witness, Mrs Mangqawa, whose testimony will unfortunately have to stand down for a while until the Xhosa interpreter actually arrives at the venue.

But as I've indicated, in order to save some time we intend to proceed with some of the other outstanding issues and testimony and we will return to the testimony of Mrs Mangqawa as soon as we practically can do that, with the interpreter present.

Now Mr Chaskalson, perhaps you can just assist us. There is General Erasmus that we know must still testify.

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, maybe we can just start off with that. There have been a number of documents which have been handed in and possibly we should just quickly number all of those. We had got down to Annexure R and then there were the hand-written notes that were handed in on Friday. Those haven't been assigned a formal letter yet because we weren't certain if they were admitted or not and possibly we should just leave that aside and number it when its status is decided on.

The documents that we should number is, there is a report dated the 9th of April 1999, it's from Jan Acker Kjellberg and its headed: "Port Edward Holiday Resort." This has been handed out to all the parties previously. Basically this is, there was an allegation at the first hearing that Mr Bellingan had spent time at the holiday resort. We checked out the records of the resort. We couldn't find any records for the time in question before the murder, but we did find records relating to a visit at a later period and we have included those.

The next document is an affidavit from ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaskalson, can we assign a number?

MR CHASKALSON: The next document is an affidavit Willem Adriaan Steyn and it's dated today. I think that we should call that T. Mr Chairman, maybe I can also draw your attention to an aspect of this affidavit. If you go to page 2 of the affidavit, and specifically paragraph 5.4, you will notice that that paragraph is a little bit incoherent. We have rectified that paragraph, it's been commissioned and I will hand in the original commissioned document. It has been discussed with the various parties here and I don't think any of them will have any objection to us doing it in this form.

What I wanted to do maybe is to just read that amendment so that the parties can amend the affidavits in front of them for themselves. It will be amended as follows:

... and then delete the word:

... and then delete the word:

... and the from should become"

... gets deleted. Oh, sorry, the "at" can stay the same. And I would like to just hand in the original document which has been duly commissioned and authorised. If you would rather, Mr Chairman, we can make copies of the amended document, but the photocopies had been made before the error was picked up.

Then finally, I have an affidavit from Mr Kjellberg, also of today's date, which will be U. Now Mr Chairman, in respect of this affidavit I've been informed by my colleague, Advocate Hattingh, that he has instructions that the content of this affidavit is not entirely acceptable to his client and he would therefore like for us to call Mr Kjellberg.

I would therefore suggest that we actually begin with this, I don't think we'll take very long and it will also allow Mr Kjellberg to attend to other business that he does have today.

The other point that we may want to consider before we take Mr Kjellberg, is the status of the document that was handed in on Friday.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Chaskalson. I think you must give an indication between Mr Hattingh and Mr Rautenbach, is there anything in dispute about the document on Friday? Is it going to take us a bit of time to deal with that, because if that is so I'm going to proceed to take the other evidence.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, it's not going to take more time between myself and Mr Rautenbach. We have discussed the issue this morning and we are not in agreement about this document, so the actual attendance to this document by the Committee will take some time.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Then we are going to follow your suggestion, Mr Chaskalson, we'll take Mr Kjellberg and hopefully dispose of his testimony before we proceed to the remaining witnesses.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, if I may just say that this affidavit was handed to us this morning. I read it myself, I gave it to client to read and I just got his initial instructions in that regard. The first instruction was yes, there are issues that are in dispute.

However client, when we started I said; are we going to dispute it and he said yes, but he's still considering the position, he still wants to consider the issue. I would just have to ask him now whether he still wants to consider this statement, whether we're going to accept it, or whether we need Mr Kjellberg to testify.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I am instructed that the issue of the tape recording of the meeting of, I believe it was the 17th of March 1997, between applicant and Mr Kjellberg, the one that was taped and transcribed, that transcription is, I don't know whether it is in dispute, whether that has been settled or agreed to. If we could just get confirmation in that regard, then we can finally decide whether we in fact need Mr Kjellberg to testify or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaskalson, can you shed any light on that question? Is there a dispute about the recording and transcription?

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Chairman, I've only had a cursory chance to listen to the tape recording, but I don't think that there's anything in that document that we would necessarily object to.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, I think that's your answer. Are you able to then ascertain whether the testimony of Mr Kjellberg is necessary or not?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, if you could just give me a few more minutes in this regard? We don't have to stand down, if I could just quickly speak to my client while we are still here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you. Mr Chairman, thank you for the indulgence. Yes, we would like to hear Mr Kjellberg on the one issue, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Chaskalson?

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Chairman, I had a brief discussion with my colleague and I thought that it might be appropriate if instead of me leading Mr Kjellberg, that Advocate Hattingh simply asks the issues that he would like to clarify on the affidavit and then after that I be afforded an opportunity to clarify any issues further. I think that may expedite the proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I tend to agree with that. We've got the affidavit, it's the basis of the evidence that he submits to the Panel. Mr Hattingh will raise the issues that he wishes to raise and then I'll allow you and the rest of the parties an opportunity as well to deal with anything flowing from that.

Mr Kjellberg, I want to just please rise. I want to administer the oath to you. Just give us your full names for the record.

JOHAN ACKER KJELLBERG: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated. Mr Kjellberg, we have received as Exhibit U, an affidavit which was deposed to by you on the 19th of April 1999, is that correct?

MR KJELLBERG: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you confirm the contents of that affidavit?

MR KJELLBERG: I do, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Now Advocate Hattingh representing the applicant, has requested the Panel to make yourself available to him to deal with some questions that the applicant wants to deal with and it's for that purpose that we have actually called you and arranged for you to formally appear. I'm now going to allow Mr Hattingh to proceed with those questions.

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

Mr Kjellberg, during the course of the period that you dealt with Mr Bellingan, he handed to you various notes, hand-written notes, is that correct?

MR KJELLBERG: That's correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the manner in which you dealt with that was that you took the original hand-written notes, either copied them or had them retyped and then returned the original notes to Mr Bellingan, is that correct?

MR KJELLBERG: That's correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: You say that you cannot remember when you received the document, and I take it that in paragraph 5 of your statement you deal with the document which Mr Bellingan calls the discussion document, which other people call the annexure to the first application, is that correct?

MR KJELLBERG: Yes, I can remember exactly the date when I received it from Mr Bellingan.

MR HATTINGH: But you cannot remember what you received from Mr Bellingan, whether it was typed or hand-written?

MR KJELLBERG: No, I can't remember that.

MR HATTINGH: Would you be able to assist the Committee in an explanation as to why the original of that hand-written document which Mr Bellingan says he did hand to you, the hand-written one, why the original thereof was returned to him subsequently?

MR KJELLBERG: I can't answer that, I don't know if it was and who did it and when it was handed back to him.

MR HATTINGH: If I may just say in that regard that it is a fact that Mr Bellingan himself produced the original of that document on the last day of the previous week of this hearing. - the previous week being in January.

MR KJELLBERG: Can you repeat that question please?

MR HATTINGH: I just want to put it to you as a fact that the original of this hand-written document was in the possession of Mr Bellingan at the end of January this year and it had been in his possession for quite some time before that and he then made it available towards the end of January, at the time when this matter was postponed as a part-heard hearing.

MR KJELLBERG: Ja, I've seen a part of a hand-written document, which is the same as what I call the first application, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Kjellberg, your initial report - perhaps I could just, that was Annexure or Exhibit B, dated the 15th of January 1997.

MR KJELLBERG: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now this initial report, could you just explain why or what was the nature or the purpose of this report?

MR KJELLBERG: Now the purpose with the report was to report back about the, what I had been tasked to do in relation to Mr Bellingan. When I saw Mr Bellingan the first time in August 1996, it was to start to talk to him and try to gather information that he might have, related to the Security Branch and operations that he had been involved in or had knowledge of, and this was a report to list documents that I had received from him in relation to that task.

MR HATTINGH: How many such reports had you submitted to the TRC in Cape Town, prior to the 15th of January 1997, with regard to Mr Bellingan?

MR KJELLBERG: During my meetings with Mr Bellingan I had other colleagues to me also who attended, colleagues from the Johannesburg Investigative Unit. I also brought the Head of the National Investigative Unit, Advocate Glen Goosen, to see Mr Bellingan. I also sent certain documents which I received from Mr Bellingan during the course of this period to Cape Town. And this was a final report, a summary of my dealings with Mr Bellingan.

MR HATTINGH: Now if this was the final report and the summary of your dealings with Mr Bellingan, can we then accept it as a fact that you then summarised the full period of your dealings with Mr Bellingan in this report of the 15th of January '97?

MR KJELLBERG: Ja, that would be correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: You also summarised in this report, Exhibit B, and you made an extensive list of all documents that you received from Mr Bellingan, running from document number 1 up to document number 30, page 5 to 8 of this Exhibit B, is that correct?

MR KJELLBERG: Ja, these are the documents that was related to a schedule of subjects that I raised with, that I gave to Mr Bellingan at the first or one of the first meetings. So the list of documents is related to these subjects that we were supposed to discuss.

MR HATTINGH: What I'm getting at is, did you in this list also note or mention the notes that you received from Mr Bellingan during the course of your investigation, those hand-written original notes which you took from him and subsequently returned to him?

MR KJELLBERG: Ja, when it concerned documents that related to this specific task that I was doing for the Investigative Unit, yes.

MR HATTINGH: If you look at page 5 of this document, the document number 3 dated 5th of October '96, by Mr Bellingan, includes Mr Bellingan's personal thoughts about various units, incidents etc., was that now all these loose notes that he handed to you and which you then subsequently returned to him?

MR KJELLBERG: That would have been a hand-written document by Mr Bellingan, yes.

MR HATTINGH: You make no mention of this document, the discussion document or whatever name one would give to it, in your report of the 15th of January 1997.

MR KJELLBERG: Well I don't think that's correct, I do believe I referred to his amnesty application in this report and the contents of that amnesty application.

MR HATTINGH: Perhaps I should just make myself clear. When you list all the documents or notes that you received from the applicant, in this list, page 5 to 8 you make no mention of the annexure or fleshing out or discussion document.

MR KJELLBERG: That's correct, I don't list the first application form and I don't list the annexure because as I said I was not tasked to investigate his amnesty application at that stage, this was only related to the subjects that I had been tasked to discuss with Mr Bellingan.

MR HATTINGH: When you received the document from Mr Bellingan that you subsequently considered to be his annexure to his amnesty application, that was now about two months after the original skeleton was signed and give to you for submission to Cape Town.

MR KJELLBERG: Ja, before mid-December '96, so that would be about two months afterwards, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now when Mr Bellingan gave you those, or that document towards December of '96, the one that ultimately became the annexure to his first application in the bundle as we have them here, did you not find it strange that he never signed that additional document?

MR KJELLBERG: I can't remember if I found that strange or not, what I do remember is that I got it in my hands. It is possible that somebody else, a colleague of mine from the Investigative Unit actually received it from Mr Bellingan and brought it to me in my office. I do remember that other colleagues, my other colleagues within the Investigative Unit also had a look at this document. And at that stage I believe it was quite urgent because of the cut-off date for amnesty applications, to forward it directly to Cape Town.

MR HATTINGH: Just to clarify this last answer, do I understand you correctly that you say that perhaps one of your colleagues brought this document to you in your office and that was the first time that you then saw this document?

MR KJELLBERG: As I said I can't remember the day when I received it, this document, I can't remember in what way I received it, if I was given it directly by Mr Bellingan in the prison or if anybody else brought it to me in my office.

MR HATTINGH: Now what flows from that is that you can't remember under what circumstances this document got into your hands, with relation to the status of this document?

MR KJELLBERG: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: So if Mr Bellingan's testimony is that that document was made available, not as part of his amnesty application but for another purposes, then that could very well be true?

MR KJELLBERG: No, it's not correct because when I read the document it became quite clear for me from the contents of the document, that it was an annexure. And I also discussed this document with Mr Bellingan at a later stage, in 1997, in which he clearly indicated for me and confirmed to me that this was actually the annexure to his application.

MR HATTINGH: So what you say is that at the time in December 1996, it was your impression at the time that this was the annexure to his skeleton application of October 1996?

MR KJELLBERG: Also a discussion before that, that I had with Mr Bellingan that he told me, informed me that he was going to provide me with his annexure.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Kjellberg, that was also the contents of your discussion with Mr Bellingan on the 7th of March 1997, that he wanted information and he wanted to proceed with the compilation of the fleshing out of his initial application.

MR KJELLBERG: I don't think that was at all the reason for the background to our discussion in March '97. When I saw this annexure to his application, and specifically when it was related to the murder of his wife, Janine, I found it very much incomplete and the discussion as I remember it now was that he had to complete his application, it was not a full disclosure, and in that way this application, this annexure was also a skeleton application.

MR HATTINGH: You cannot remember whether you in fact received this document, the original hand-written document in person from Mr Bellingan, is it then also possible that you cannot remember whether you in fact returned the original hand-written document to Mr Bellingan at some stage, with a request that this thing should be further expanded on with regard to further information on the murder of his wife, is that possible?

MR KJELLBERG: That's possible, yes.

MR HATTINGH: In paragraph 10 of your statement, your affidavit, you say that:

Now if you can just explain that to me. When did you report that there were two contradictory applications?

MR CHASKALSON: Sorry Mr Chairman, could I just come in here for one second, I will allow the witness to answer afterwards. What we're about to be speaking about now, and Mr Kjellberg has in front of him, is a report that he sent on the request of the Amnesty Committee, into the amnesty investigation of Mr Bellingan. It's dated the 13th of November 1998, and I will let the witness take us through that.

I haven't handed in this report at any stage and I would rather not hand in that report. That report was a report that was specifically requested and it contains investigations into the matter. The issue about the two applications, I've got no problems and if needs be we can make extracts out of this report available, but I would like the report to be treated with some form of sensitivity.

CHAIRPERSON: So the witness would only be referring to a portion, a relevant portion of the report, not the entire report?

MR CHASKALSON: And not necessarily discussing all of the leads that he followed up or the steps that he took in the investigation and people that he spoke with.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well if he relies on a portion of the report, then of course the parties would be able to have access to that portion only and not the rest of the document which as you indicate might contain privileged matters.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Hattingh, please proceed?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, if you would just bear with me for a moment, I just want to get instructions from my client.

MR WAGENER: While we're waiting, I'm not sure what this investigation report is that Mr Chaskalson is referring to, but I would request that perhaps the whole document be made available to us all. I don't think it is proper that we are merely confronted or given a part thereof. Surely all the parties here would then be entitled to the complete document, to deal with the extracts in the necessary context. So I would request that the full document be given to us.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well not if the entire document is not directly to do with this matter, then of course it's not relevant to our proceedings here, but I'm not sure how this thing is going to feature. Mr Chaskalson has alerted us to this, we'll have to see whether anything comes of this or not. We'll see how the questioning develops.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Kjellberg, before we deal with that report of the 13th of November '98, in paragraphs 12 and 13 you used the words:

And in paragraph 13 you also say:

Now what I would like to ask from you in this regard, were you involved at any stage in the preparation, or the assistance in the preparation for amnesty applications, were you aware of the requirements and that the documents had to be signed under oath and things like that?

MR KJELLBERG: As I said I was not involved in the investigation at this stage, I only assisted Mr Bellingan in certain respects. I think at the first time I met Mr Bellingan I was together with the Head of the Investigative Unit in Johannesburg, and during that meeting the police docket was discussed. There was a request from Mr Bellingan to try to get hold of the police docket and he also informed us that he needed that police docket.

MR HATTINGH: But what I would like to put to you is that you formed your opinion and the impression that this document was in fact part and parcel of the amnesty application, at a time when you were not au fait with the requirements of an application and the fact that it needed to be signed or attested to under oath, is that correct?

MR KJELLBERG: At this stage there was no, I think only one or two of our Investigators who were involved in any sort or applications and I think there had only been one hearing, one amnesty hearing.

So what I knew, and what was discussed in the Investigative Unit was that the criteria for amnesty applications, amongst them was the full disclosure. I have been a police officer for 25 years and involved in serious crime investigations in Sweden and in his amnesty application he referred to a murder and I was, as I said in my affidavit, quite surprised that he as a police officer described, gave a full disclosure the way he did because it was far from complete and that was what I referred to him.

And when it comes to the signature of his annexure, I was aware of the fact that the first four application form was signed. And when I received now the annexure I had colleagues of mine in the office to look at it and I was told and it was decided that this annexure should be forwarded to Cape Town as soon as possible because there was a cut-off date in the form it was.

MR HATTINGH: But obviously with you having the experience as police officer for 25 years, I take it that in Sweden when you make a statement, that you also have to sign it before a Commissioner of Oaths, that kind of arrangement is also the practice in Sweden?

MR KJELLBERG: No, that's wrong, we don't sign our statements, or people don't sign statements.

MR HATTINGH: When you discussed it with your colleagues, the fact that this document was not signed or attested to under oath, why not at that stage, this was already two months after the application was made, why not at that stage take it back to the applicant, ask him to sign it and then forward it to Cape Town? It would have taken only half a day if at all.

MR KJELLBERG: As said I was not involved in his, to investigate his amnesty application and I expected to get directives from, either from my head in my unit in Johannesburg or from Cape Town if further actions had to be taken in relation to this annexure.

MR HATTINGH: But when you sent the document through to Cape Town you were aware of the fact that it lacked a certain formality, being a signature and the affirmation thereof under oath?

MR KJELLBERG: I believe I can't remember in detail what was discussed, but as far as I remember it was decided that this annexure should be sent to Cape Town as it was.

MR HATTINGH: This document was never marked Annexure on the top of it on the first page or anywhere.

MR KJELLBERG: I believe when I sent this annexure I also took a copy of the application form and put that together with this annexure, so it was clear that the form, the annexure was attached to his, the original application form as an annexure.

MR HATTINGH: In fact what you did was you put into effect your own opinion and impression about his document when you put it together with the application yourself, on your own initiative?

MR KJELLBERG: Yes, that's correct, and it was based on discussions I had with Mr Bellingan and information I received from Mr Bellingan about the status of this document, which was later confirmed by him also in later discussions.

MR HATTINGH: I just want to put it to you that it will be denied by Mr Bellingan, it wouldn't be denied, it has already been denied by him that this was in fact that what he told you during the discussions, this document was made available to you for the reasons which he explained and not as part of his amnesty application.

MR KJELLBERG: Ja, if you want me to comment on that, so I think that's not true because as I said we had discussion prior to I received this annexure and we also had discussions afterwards and he, Mr Bellingan clearly indicated and told me that this was his amnesty application.

MR HATTINGH: When did you first - when first did it come to your knowledge that there were two contradictory, as you put it, applications or annexures with regard to Mr Bellingan?

MR KJELLBERG: I believe that was in July/August 1998.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Kjellberg, I've already indicated to you what, and you've already been, you've also been present in this hearing when Mr Bellingan testified about this issue and this document, I put it to you that there must have been a misunderstanding between yourself and Mr Bellingan about the status of this document which reached your hands in some way.

MR KJELLBERG: I would say, comment to that, that that's not correct, there was no misunderstanding.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh. Mr Chaskalson?

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you, Mr Chairman, a few questions. Mr Chairman, I presume you have no objection to the witness and I sharing a similar microphone.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll watch you very closely.

EXAMINATION BY MR CHASKALSON: Mr Kjellberg, you informed us that originally you were conducting an HRV investigation and your referred to certain issues that you wanted to canvass with the applicant, can you turn to page 9 of bundle 4 and tell me if those were the original issues that you presented to him?

MR KJELLBERG: Yes, this is correct, these are the subjects that I raised at one of the first meetings with Mr Bellingan.

MR CHASKALSON: You were asked in examination as to when you had seen the second application for the first time and I think you answered that that would have been round about July or August 1998, can you tell us how this came to your attention?

MR KJELLBERG: I received instructions from the co-ordinator of amnesty applications in Johannesburg office, to conduct an investigation into Mr Bellingan's amnesty application.

MR CHASKALSON: And what information were you presented with at that time in order to conduct your investigation?

MR KJELLBERG: I received a copy of what I would call the second application from Mr Bellingan.

MR CHASKALSON: Did you find it strange that you should receive this application now?

MR KJELLBERG: Strange in the way that it was a second version of the application, yes.

MR CHASKALSON: And did you in due course draw that to anyone's attention in Cape Town?

MR KJELLBERG: Ja, I forwarded a report at a later stage in which I mentioned this fact. At that time I actually thought that the person dealing with the application in the Cape Town office was aware of the fact that it was a second application.

MR CHASKALSON: And you testified that you had discussed the first application with Mr Bellingan and he at no time said to you; sorry Jan, this isn't my real application, it's just a discussion document, the real thing is coming, or words to that effect?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I have to object. This is not a leading question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I was a bit puzzled because of the situation of this witness, but I think for the sake of fairness, although it's perhaps not strictly your witness, Mr Chaskalson, perhaps you must just rephrase.

MR CHASKALSON: I will do that.

Did you have any conversations with the applicant about his first application?

MR KJELLBERG: Yes, I did.

MR CHASKALSON: Did you discuss it as a valid amnesty application or as a discussion document?

MR KJELLBERG: As a valid amnesty application.

MR CHASKALSON: Did Mr Bellingan ever object to this characterisation of what he calls the discussion document?

MR KJELLBERG: He never related to any discussion document, it was discussed as an amnesty application.

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you, Mr Kjellberg, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Chaskalson. Mr Rautenbach, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: Only one issue, Mr Chairman.

Mr Kjellberg, you said that when you looked at what we've been referring to as the first amnesty application, when you first looked at it you thought that it did not provide full disclosure, correct?

MR KJELLBERG: Ja, that was my impression.

MR RAUTENBACH: May I just confirm with you, the reasons for that impression of yours was firstly, that he mentioned that he had two accomplices without mentioning who they were, was that one of the reasons that made you concerned, that the application is not fulfilling the requirements of the Act?

MR KJELLBERG: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And the second one in that first application was that from a reading of that document one may come to the conclusion that that's not a person who admits his guilt, he does not admit a murder, correct?

MR KJELLBERG: Ja, that was also my impression. He described how he went back to the house together with these two unidentified persons and he doesn't admit the murder as such in this document.

MR RAUTENBACH: And it was in the context of that

information, that you had to have further discussions with him, correct?

MR KJELLBERG: Yes, there were a lot of details that were lacking in this document to be a full disclosure. That was my impression, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: I have not further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Rautenbach. Mr Lengane?

MR LENGANE: No questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wagener?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Mr Kjellberg, can I assume that you are aware that these proceedings are conducted in terms of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act of 1995?

MR KJELLBERG: Yes, Mr Chairman, I'm aware of that.

MR WAGENER: And that specifically chapter 4 thereof deals with the amnesty process that we are busy with right now?

MR KJELLBERG: Yes, I'm aware of that.

MR WAGENER: May I read from this Act, Section 19(1). It reads as follows:

MR WAGENER: Sorry, Mr Chairman.

Can I read to you Section 19(1) of this Act. It reads as follows:

That is Section 19(1) that I've read to you now. Now may I ask you, initially you received what has been referred to as the skeleton application, that is pages 1 to 7 of bundle 1, correct?

MR KJELLBERG: That's correct.

MR WAGENER: Now do I understand you correctly, that what you were busy with afterwards in this process of discussions with Mr Bellingan, that you were on behalf of the Amnesty Committee requesting him to provide further particulars?

MR KJELLBERG: No, that's not correct.

MR WAGENER: So you were not at the time acting within this section that I've just referred you to?

MR KJELLBERG: No, I didn't. As I said before I didn't conduct any amnesty investigation until July/August 1998.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, in that instance, no further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Wagener.

ADV BOSMAN: ... Chairperson.

Mr Kjellberg, there is just one matter I'm not quite clear on. Did the applicant indicate to you that he realised he was in some difficulty with two contradictory versions?

MR KJELLBERG: The first time I discussed the two applications with him was in a meeting together with Mr Chaskalson, a few days prior to the first hearing in January 1999.

ADV BOSMAN: ...(indistinct) referred to what I've written down here:

But at that stage, didn't you have knowledge of the second document? - that I must have misunderstood you.

MR KJELLBERG: Ja, the first application was handed in, submitted, in November/December 1996 and I believe the second application was handed in in '97, November '97, if I'm not mistaken, so at that stage I was certainly not aware of another application.

ADV BOSMAN: ...(indistinct) clarified that. I misunderstood your evidence. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I assume that there's nothing further that you want to raise, Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Kjellberg, thank you very much, you're excused.

MR KJELLBERG: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaskalson, I assume from what I observe that we still have our difficulty with the Xhosa interpreter?

MR CHASKALSON: It appears to be that way, Mr Chairman, and I would then suggest that we make arrangements for General Erasmus to testify.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we agree with that.

General, - I'm sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: General, I was told that you wish to give your testimony in Afrikaans.

GEN ERASMUS: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you please give us your full names for the record?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please be seated. Mr Wagener, for practical reasons the Panel has prevailed upon you to assist us in receiving the testimony of General Erasmus. We know that you have made your own position clear, but it simply to assist the Panel that you would be facilitating his testimony at this stage.

EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: That's correct, Mr Chairman, and you will also have to watch us closely because we are also sharing a microphone here.

Generaal, u is 'n afgetrede Generaal, voorheen verbonde aan die Suid Afrikaanse Polisie, korrek?

GEN ERASMUS: Dis korrek, Voorsitter.

MR WAGENER: Presies wanneer het u - exactly when did you retire?

GEN ERASMUS: End of November 1992.

MR WAGENER: General, is it then correct that up until the end of 1983, you were attached to the Security Branch of the South African Police at Port Elizabeth, where you were the Divisional Commander-in-Chief.

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, that's correct.

MR WAGENER: And as from the beginning of 1984 you were transferred to Johannesburg, where you served in a similar position in the Witwatersrand Division and you were stationed at Johan Vorster Square?

GEN ERASMUS: That's correct.

MR WAGENER: During your period of service at John Vorster Square, what was your rank?

GEN ERASMUS: I arrived in Johannesburg as a Colonel and then I was promoted to a Brigadier.

MR WAGENER: General, for what period of time did you serve in this post that we've just talked about?

GEN ERASMUS: I served in this position until the end of November 1988.

MR WAGENER: And after that where were you transferred to?

GEN ERASMUS: I was transferred to Security Headquarters, Pretoria.

MR WAGENER: And what was your job description in Pretoria?

GEN ERASMUS: My job description in Pretoria was Divisional Head of the Intelligence Unit.

MR WAGENER: Did you still hold the rank of Brigadier?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, but meanwhile at that time there were two Brigadier's, an assistant and a deputy, a Deputy-Commissioner Brigadier and at that time I was promoted, probably in December, to the rank of deputy, in other words the senior Brigadier.

MR WAGENER: Yes and then until when did you serve in that

capacity at head office in Pretoria?

GEN ERASMUS: Until the end of May 1989.

MR WAGENER: Do I understand your evidence correctly that you served in that capacity for a period of about six months it seems?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, I think I should just explain. I was supposed to serve there for six months, but during December of '88, I took leave and I think I returned in January.

Thereafter I took a senior management course, I can't remember how long that lasted, and I was sent to the old South West Africa, then Namibia, where I had to complete a certain task. I also had to go to the Northern Cape, where I also had to complete a certain task over a couple of days. Then I went to the Eastern Province, where I addressed members. So I moved around a fair bit. That is quite apart from the thousands of meetings which we had to attend on a daily basis on senior management level, so my time that I served there was very, very limited.

MR WAGENER: Yes, General, what then happened to you after May of 1989?

GEN ERASMUS: From the 1st of June I was transferred to Johannesburg, Witwatersrand Division as a Divisional Commander, Commissioner. I served in that post, and I think it was in the next year that the new dispensation of Regional Commissioner came into being and I was then promoted to Major-General and I became the Regional Commissioner of the region of the Witwatersrand. I served in that capacity until I retired.

MR WAGENER: Now this last post which you held, was that a post attached to the Security Branch of the South African Police?

GEN ERASMUS: No, the Security Branch of the SAP was only a part of the broader Police Force, so I wasn't directly in charge, they had their own commanding officer.

MR WAGENER: Do I understand your evidence correctly that as at May 1989, you served in the Security Branch, but for the last period of your career you served in a different capacity in the police?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, one could say that I was the head of a greater part of the police, the uniform branch, but these other branches also actually fell under us but not directly.

MR WAGENER: The applicant in this matter, Mr Michael Bellingan, can you remember where you first met him?

GEN ERASMUS: It was at John Vorster Square where I first had dealings with him. He was a staff member there.

MR WAGENER: In other words, were you his commanding officer?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Were you his direct superior?

GEN ERASMUS: No, I wasn't his direct commanding officer, I was the overarching commanding officer.

MR WAGENER: Can you recall who his direct superior was?

GEN ERASMUS: I think at that stage, I can't remember his rank, but it was a man called Oosthuizen. I think he was a Major.

MR WAGENER: Is that the person who later became a Brigadier, Alfred Oosthuizen?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes.

MR WAGENER: At the stage when you were transferred to Pretoria, as you testified earlier round about the end of 1988, where was Mr Bellingan stationed then?

GEN ERASMUS: He was attached to the Intelligence Division to which I was transferred. I might just add that Mr Oosthuizen was already there at that stage. Both of them were transferred there before I was.

MR WAGENER: So initially you, Oosthuizen and Bellingan were in Johannesburg and later on you all three ended up in Pretoria?

GEN ERASMUS: That's correct.

MR WAGENER: Does that mean that for the couple of months that you worked in Pretoria you were once again Mr Bellingan's commanding officer?

GEN ERASMUS: Correct.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, I'm trying to lead the witness, if there is any objection you should just indicate to me please.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no, please go ahead. We know what the basis is for you facilitating the testimony.

MR WAGENER: Just to get back to what we were saying, during the time that you were in Pretoria for the couple months, you were once again his commanding officer, but once again his overall commanding officer and not his direct superior?

GEN ERASMUS: Correct.

MR WAGENER: This trial or hearing, General, basically deals with three incidents for which Mr Bellingan is asking for amnesty. The first incident is one relating to money belonging to the trade union, NUMSA, the second incident is the murder of Mr Bellingan's wife, his first wife and the third relates to an alleged cover-up afterwards, relating to the murder of Mrs Bellingan. So I would like to lead your evidence relating to these three aspects, with the leave of the Committee.

Now I'd like to refer you very briefly to bundle 1, that is the amnesty application of Mr Bellingan, and specifically from page 389 onwards. There Mr Bellingan deals with the incident regarding the NUMSA funds and more specifically I'd like to refer you to page 390, the next page where Mr Bellingan gives particulars regarding this incident. In the first place the evidence of Mr Bellingan that this incident took place, according to the written document, in 1988, but according to Mr Bellingan's oral evidence it took place in '89. There he alleges that you approached him in regard to the whole incident which then led to what we here call the NUMSA incident. Would you like to comment on this at all?

GEN ERASMUS: Chairperson, I can only say that as far as this NUMSA incident is concerned I saw these accounts for the first time when my legal representative showed them to me. I can't recall that I ever discussed NUMSA as such with anybody, or that I gave any such an order to open an account at a bank. I saw these things for the very first time when my legal representative showed it to me. I had heard in passing and in the course of all the investigations that there were these allegations, but I wasn't aware of them.

MR WAGENER: When you talk about your legal representative, do you mean myself, myself for purposes of these proceedings?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, you Mr Wagener.

MR WAGENER: General, you made a short sworn statement in this connection, which is before the Committee as Exhibit J, and I'd like to show you this. Is that correct?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, it is.

MR WAGENER: Do you confirm the statement and the contents thereof as correct?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Then General, you will see that the statement actually says very little except that it refers to a letter, which we will find in bundle 3(1) from page 13 to page 16, and I'd like to also show you this letter.

In Exhibit J, General, you confirm under oath the correctness of paragraph 2 of this letter which I'm now showing you, is that correct?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, it is.

MR WAGENER: What does this paragraph 2 purport to be?

GEN ERASMUS: Paragraph 2 reads as follows:

MR WAGENER: And then General, perhaps just to expedite matters, could you once again confirm what is said in paragraph 2.4.

GEN ERASMUS: The allegation is made there that I received some of this NUMSA money or some other money from him, but I can't recall that at all.

MR WAGENER: General, we now know that this NUMSA project of Mr Bellingan covered a period from more-or-less March until I think August 1989. I once again want to find out from you, where were you stationed during this period, March to August of '89?

GEN ERASMUS: In March of '88 until the end of May I was still in Pretoria, but for the rest of that period I was in the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg and my office was in Eloff Street.

MR WAGENER: General, can you recall that a discussion was held with you at some point, relating to marital problems, marital problems experienced between the Bellingan couple?

GEN ERASMUS: During one of Mr Bellingan's visits which, he came to see me at home, I think it was a Saturday, it was a usual kind of discussion that we had and I asked him how his family were and he said they were all well, I think they had one child, things were going well, but that he and his wife were experiencing some problems and I asked him what kind of problems and he said that the in-laws were interfering in the marriage. And that is what this discussion related to as far as I can recall, apart from general conversational matters. He came to my house twice and we stood on the stoep and underneath the stoep area there was an open area of land and he remarked that it would be very nice to build a swimming pool there. One particular occasion we also talked about fishing in Namibia in South West Africa.

MR WAGENER: General, ...(intervention)

GEN ERASMUS: I was never aware of the fact that he was a fisherman until that time.

MR WAGENER: General, this discussion or these conversations which you were referring to now, when did they take place, approximately when did they take place?

GEN ERASMUS: The first visit was whilst we were still in Johannesburg if I remember correctly, and the second visit took place after I'd left the Intelligence Branch and had taken up my new post in Johannesburg.

MR WAGENER: Mr Bellingan alleges - I don't have the exact page reference, but he alleges that you apparently told him that he should manage the problem, words to that effect, can you recall that?

GEN ERASMUS: I think he's perhaps confusing with certain issues. During this discussion about the problems between himself and his wife, I told him: "You and Janine must sort out your problems for the good of the child." Now at that stage the word "manage" wasn't in common use in the police, we talked about managing the problem in some other way. That wasn't actually part of my vocabulary at the time. So I deny that I told him anything else, I deny that there could have been any other intention or connotation as merely this, namely that him and his wife should sort our their problem for the sake of the child.

MR WAGENER: Thank you. General, then a couple of questions about the murder of Mrs Bellingan. It is common cause that this murder took place during September of 1991, where were you stationed then?

GEN ERASMUS: I was stationed in Johannesburg. I was the Regional Commander of the region Witwatersrand.

MR WAGENER: Where was Mr Bellingan stationed at the time?

GEN ERASMUS: He was still attached to the Intelligence Unit of the Security Police at headquarters in Pretoria.

MR WAGENER: Were you at that stage Mr Bellingan's commanding officer, whether directly or in an overall way?

GEN ERASMUS: Not at all, I had no dealings with him.

MR WAGENER: After Mrs Bellingan's murder did you have any discussions, conversations with Mr Bellingan?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, he telephoned me and asked me if he could come and see me and the conversation took place in my office and if I remember correctly it was in Braamfontein, and the conversation which he had with me on that day dealt with the following - at that stage he was still denying any involvement in the death of his wife, but the conversation which took place between us related to his promotion firstly. He said that he wasn't being promoted.

Now I felt sorry for him because the thing had come a long way and the investigation was rather complicated and I told him that I undertook to speak to the people at head office regarding his possible promotion, depending of course or pending the investigation into the murder and the result of that.

Secondly, he complained or he mentioned it to me regarding Steyn's method of investigation. He said that Steyn and Advocate Meiring, which had been placed with the advocate by Mr von Lieres to investigate, that they were not only threatening himself but also his sister. I can't recall her name. Now my answer was: "Mike, you know what the circumstances are, if that is the case your sister and you must lodge an official complaint against the investigator and against the advocate."

MR WAGENER: General, we now know that Mr Bellingan killed his own wife, did you know it at that stage?

GEN ERASMUS: Not at all, except that in terms of, or according to the investigating officer and his immediate superior at the time he was a suspect in the case, but I didn't know that he had killed his wife, and I don't think I should comment on it any further because I had no contact with him at that stage.

MR WAGENER: General, were you in any way involved in the investigation into the murder of Mrs Bellingan?

GEN ERASMUS: I became aware of the murder on the Saturday morning. I heard it on the news and I then asked who the investigating officer was and they told me it was Murder and Robbery, Brixton who were investigating and the investigating officer was Steyn. I can't remember his rank.

He then came to see me at some stage and told me that the investigation was progressing, but that Bellingan had an alibi, that he was in Johannesburg at the time and that the investigation was progressing rather slowly. That was all I knew at that stage.

MR WAGENER: General, on page 430 of the first bundle which is before the Committee, Mr Bellingan alleges, and I read it, it's very short:

What is your comment on that?

GEN ERASMUS: I deny that and I don't there is any way in which any one of us would have been able to interfere with the investigation because Mr von Lieres, who was the Attorney-General at the time, took a personal interest in this matter. - and I don't have to say anything further about Mr von Lieres.

MR WAGENER: You don't have to. Then General, on the same bundle as from page 453, Mr Bellingan deals with paragraph 11(a) and paragraph 11(b) of the prescribed form on which application is made for amnesty. In paragraph 11(a) the question is asked whether - now we're talking about the murder of his wife, whether he had committed the act on the instruction or orders or on behalf of somebody or an institution or body and his answer was:

Then paragraph 11(b) he is asked to give particulars of such an authorisation or order and then a long explanation follows which ultimately, on page 462, culminates in the statement:

To which conversation is Mr Bellingan referring here according to you?

GEN ERASMUS: The only inference which I can draw from this, and I can't actually infer much, is that during that visit where he told me about his marital problems, that there were problems between himself and his wife and where I perhaps said to him that the two of them should sort out their problem for the sake of their child, that is the only inference that I can make. I can't think of anything else.

MR WAGENER: And that conversation took place several years before?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, a long time ago, a long time before the murder.

MR WAGENER: General, what is your comment on the suggestion which is made here that you were actually suggesting during this conversation that Mr Bellingan could murder his own wife?

GEN ERASMUS: Well I reject that with contempt. That is very, very far from the truth.

MR WAGENER: And then a last matter, during oral evidence before this Committee, Mr Bellingan testified that he had acted in terms of what he described as a general order or instruction to himself and members of the Security Branch, and I'll try and get to that without leading too directly, but do you have any comment to make as far as the allegation goes that members of the Security Branch operated in terms of what was described as a general authorisation?

GEN ERASMUS: Not as far as I was aware.

MR WAGENER: Could you perhaps just elaborate on that answer, how then do you see this situation or this statement regarding the general authorisation?

GEN ERASMUS: I can't believe that there could have been a general authorisation which applied to everybody, there could have been specific instances where somebody perhaps did something which lay in a different area, but then it was usually channelled back to the people who dealt with it. So I can't see, or I wasn't aware of any general authorisation.

MR WAGENER: So you deny the existence of such a general authorisation?

GEN ERASMUS: Well I don't know about it.

MR WAGENER: I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Wagener. Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, if at all possible if we could just have a short break for instructions from client, if possible at all. I don't know whether we could perhaps take the tea break at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll stand down for about 15 minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: General Erasmus, I remind you you are still under oath.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.

General, you know Mr Bellingan well at some stage, is that correct?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, I've always known him well.

MR HATTINGH: What I mean is at the stage that he was in the police you had good contact with him?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: I want to make a couple of statements and I want you to either confirm or perhaps just comment on it. Is it correct that Mr Bellingan has particular expertise in Stratcom and in Intelligence work and matters?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, that is so.

MR HATTINGH: And is it also correct if I make the statement that he was one of the members of the Police Force who gave his all for his work, he put his whole heart and soul into his job and he was totally committed and committed to the cause and motivated?

GEN ERASMUS: Chairperson, he was an excellent worker.

MR HATTINGH: And that his motivation and his commitment also went as far as protecting and maintaining the government of the day and the role which the Security Police played in that, he put his whole heart and soul into that?

GEN ERASMUS: As far as the protection of the government is concerned, that was our task.

MR HATTINGH: The remark which Mr Bellingan makes is this, he says that even in cases where there were instructions which on the face of it appeared to be unconventional his personality and motivation was such that he carried out those unconventional orders to the letter without doubting it in any way if these orders came from his superiors.

GEN ERASMUS: I can't comment.

MR HATTINGH: Now the measure to which you knew Mr Bellingan, would it enable you to give him a character reference as being a person with whom you would have associated a theft or acts done for personal gain?

GEN ERASMUS: At that stage, Chairperson, I didn't doubt his character in any way.

MR HATTINGH: And then, I don't have any personal knowledge of this, but in fact I'm quite unfamiliar with Security Police matters and amnesty applications in this regard, but I understand as per the instructions of my client that at the Khotso House amnesty application, Eugene de Kock testified that General Erasmus was a person who was perhaps "feared" as a strong person in the Security Police, and that when General Erasmus said something or gave an order you simply didn't cross swords with him.

GEN ERASMUS: Chairperson, perhaps I was known as a good policeman and I was known as somebody who did straight talking, but whether anybody actually feared me, well I don't know.

MR HATTINGH: To take the matter a little bit further, apparently Eugene de Kock also said - you can now deny it or confirm it, he said that, at the Khotso House investigation it was said that your attitude was that nobody was allowed to say anything about the Khotso House matter and that you would actually shoot anybody who said anything untoward and that your answer at the Khotso House application was simply that you didn't react to that.

GEN ERASMUS: I don't recall that, Eugene de Kock said many things there.

MR HATTINGH: Then General, I don't actually want to go into the detail of the matter in this forum, but I want to place it as a fact on record that you also applied for amnesty, you personally, for certain violations of human rights.

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, I applied for amnesty for a whole range of incidents.

MR HATTINGH: And did you lodge any amnesty applications relating to incidents which did not relate to human rights violations?

GEN ERASMUS: Chair, I don't really understand the question. I don't actually know what the advocate is aiming at.

MR HATTINGH: The question is this, one can apply for amnesty in general for various offences or illegal acts committed, one can apply for amnesty for murder that could be typified as a gross human rights violation, and one can also apply for amnesty for say obstructing the course of an investigation or theft of funds and that would perhaps not constitute a gross human rights violation, but something less than that.

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, I understand. So you can apply for amnesty for assault and things like that, but I did not.

MR HATTINGH: You also didn't apply for amnesty for the NUMSA fund scenario, is that correct?

GEN ERASMUS: No, I didn't apply for the NUMSA funds matter because I had nothing to do with that.

MR HATTINGH: My instructions from Mr Bellingan are that apart from the three meetings which the two of you had, the two at your house and one at your office in Braamfontein, there was in fact a fourth meeting at your house after the meeting at your office in Braamfontein.

GEN ERASMUS: I don't recall such a meeting and I would have.

MR HATTINGH: Now I could perhaps just tell you that there has been some talk of a so-called second level of communication between members of the Security Police, what I want to ask you is this, wasn't it true that sometimes there was communication between the members, not in code but at least that you would not discuss the details, especially over the phone, but use euphemisms and use a kind of a code to convey things by means of a second level of communication?

GEN ERASMUS: Maybe.

MR HATTINGH: Then Mr Bellingan also says that that conversation in his office, or in your office in Braamfontein specifically dealt with you telling him about your dissatisfaction about the police investigation and the manner in which Security Police matters were investigated and investigated too deeply.

GEN ERASMUS: What happened at that discussion, or the chief points as I recall them are as I told the Committee, I don't recall us discussing the functioning of the Security Police.

MR HATTINGH: But you wouldn't deny that, it's possible that it did take place and that it was discussed?

GEN ERASMUS: I don't think so because I would have remembered it.

MR HATTINGH: Can you remember that Mr Bellingan also mentioned something to you about the threats of the Potter family, in other words the in-laws?

GEN ERASMUS: No.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that it was discussed?

GEN ERASMUS: I suppose so yes, but I don't remember.

MR HATTINGH: Now the meeting or the discussion which you had with the investigating officer, that was the Monday morning, it's the first thing that the investigating officer notes when the docket is handed over to him on that Monday morning was a discussion with yourself.

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, I did speak to him during that week. I don't know whether it was on a Monday or whenever.

MR HATTINGH: No I want to tell you that you may accept that it was Monday first thing. What I want to know from you is, is it customary that the Regional Commissioner has contact with every murder investigation and has discussions with the investigating officer right at the outset of the investigation?

GEN ERASMUS: That is not unusual at all. I regarded this as a very serious matter because a colleague of mine's wife had been killed and I wanted to ensure that the matter was properly investigated. So I see absolutely sinister in this.

MR HATTINGH: You were involved in later - let me rephrase the question. During the course of the investigation by the investigating officer, Steyn, you on occasion received feedback and report-backs from him, is that correct?

GEN ERASMUS: It was a long time ago, I can't remember, I can't remember what he told me.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall that the investigation of the NUMSA matter was taken away from Steyn at some point and transferred to another investigating officer?

GEN ERASMUS: I will want to say to you quite honestly that I wasn't even aware of the fact that there was another investigation with this murder. That is how little I knew of this docket.

MR HATTINGH: General, in this regard I'd like to refer you to a note in the investigation diary, we see it on page 124 of the investigation diary - I'm sorry it starts on page 125 right at the top. It reads:

Do you recall that?

GEN ERASMUS: I just wanted to tell you, you're dealing with the wrong Erasmus, they're referring there to Lourens Erasmus and not myself.

MR HATTINGH: So this instruction for the taking away of the NUMSA investigation or that part of the investigation and giving it to some other officer did not take place with your knowledge or approval, whatever?

GEN ERASMUS: Chairperson, I told you that I didn't even know that there was this investigation within the broader murder investigation and I heard at a later stage that the docket was sent to Pretoria. I'm not sure but I think Steyn at that stage fell under the command of the General Joubert, now deceased, but I don't know anything about that matter.

MR HATTINGH: General, did you at any stage have any discussion with the deceased, Mr Bellingan, regarding the NUMSA funds and the problems regarding that?

GEN ERASMUS: Chairperson, if you would allow me, I would just like to tell you about me discussion with the deceased as I can recall them.

After I'd left the Intelligence Branch and was stationed in Johannesburg, Mrs Bellingan, the deceased, phoned me on two occasions and on these two occasions - I'm sorry to have to say this here, but on those two occasions she complained because Mr Bellingan came home very late in the evenings and that he was sometimes under the influence of liquor when he came home.

I remember the one instance very clearly. He experienced some kind of a problem and he was at some police station somewhere and she was very, very worried about him and I spoke to the people there and they sent him home. There was an investigation into this by the relevant people, but I can't tell you what the outcome of it was.

Janine as I knew her, but I didn't know her very well, Janine was extremely protective towards her husband and I stress extremely, she didn't want any harm to come to him, she wanted him to be at home.

Now the third occasion when she phoned me took place one day when she phoned me at my office in Braamfontein. At that stage I had nothing further to do with Mr Bellingan, since May '88. She phoned me and started talking to me. She said to me: "General, I'd like to come and discuss something with you regarding Mike." And just at that point she said to me: "Sir, I can't talk any further because somebody has entered my office. I then said to her: "Make an appointment with my secretary and come and see me." And that was the last communication I had with her, I never heard from her again. The first thing I heard after that was that she had died.

MR HATTINGH: So to answer the question regarding the discussion of NUMSA, the answer is no.

GEN ERASMUS: The answer is most definitely no.

ADV GCABASHE: General, can you recall how long before her death she had this last discussion with you?

GEN ERASMUS: Chair, I think it was several months before then.

ADV GCABASHE: Are you able to narrow down the several months? She died in September, are you able to give an indication as to how long before? You know several months is a bit difficult to deal with.

GEN ERASMUS: I'll have to guess ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The interpreter can't hear the speaker.

GEN ERASMUS: I'll have to guess. I think it was relatively early in '91, perhaps even earlier than that, but I can't remember.

MR HATTINGH: General, then I'd like to refer you to a statement under oath made by Major Charl Petrus van der Merwe in bundle 4 on page 1. Perhaps you can find this document with the help of your legal representative, I don't know whether you've ever seen this statement before. It concerns Major van der Merwe's comment regarding that project, code name "V10" or something like that.

GEN ERASMUS: It's WH10.

MR HATTINGH: If we look at page 7 of that document, 16.10 there is a reference to Lieutenant-General Gerrit Erasmus, is that a reference to yourself?

GEN ERASMUS: I was never a Lieutenant-General, unfortunately I wasn't promoted to that rank, but I was the Head of the Intelligence Section for that very brief period.

MR HATTINGH: Your first name is Gerrit, is that correct?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you were Head of Group D, Stratcom?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, I was the Head of the Intelligence Unit, that is Group D.

MR HATTINGH: Now General, the essence of this statement as I interpret it, is that there was this operation in terms of which cheques and other methods of payment belonging to the unions were intercepted and there was also the suggestion that Lieutenant-General Horak, Lieutenant-Colonel Horak had made these cheques available to Group D, and you'll see that on page 4, paragraph 11 of the statement. Perhaps you should just read paragraph 11. Perhaps I should just ask you, have you seen this statement before or is this the first time?

GEN ERASMUS: I think I've seen the name before, but I can't remember this man at all, this van der Merwe.

MR HATTINGH: General, I would like to ask you a couple of questions about this statement and the allegations made herein. Would you like an opportunity to read the statement first? I'd like to base my questions on this statement.

GEN ERASMUS: Chairperson, I think the advocate must ask the questions and then we'll see how far we get. Perhaps he can refer me to certain extracts.

MR HATTINGH: Chair, I would like to suggest that he first reads the statement, otherwise it's going to lead to confusion, unless you want me to proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: The General says that he is quite happy with you just asking your questions. Perhaps you should just carry on and if he needs help or whatever, then you can help him out.

MR HATTINGH: In paragraph 7 on page 2, Major van der Merwe says that he doesn't know when the WH10 operation started, but he does know that it's an official project which was known to the Security Branch and which received a high priority as an information source, do you agree with that?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes. That was a very old project. When I joined the Security Branch in 1963 it was already in existence. I don't know whether it existed in the same form but it did exist.

MR HATTINGH: And then page 3, the last sentence:

Do you agree?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, this thing had a very wide impact, namely to gather intelligence and to then utilise this intelligence. You see, Stratcom only came into existence later.

MR HATTINGH: Paragraph 8, the last sentence says:

Do you agree that that is what happened?

GEN ERASMUS: I believe that cheques were intercepted to gather the intelligence regarding funds coming into the country, but there were very many departments who wanted to have this information and I think at some point there was also a legislation drafted as a result of the intelligence so gained.

MR HATTINGH: Just to clarify, you say you believe it could have been like that. What I want to know is, were you aware of it being the case at that stage?

GEN ERASMUS: As I said, I know the post was intercepted but I never personally saw any cheques because that was not my job.

MR HATTINGH: Then paragraph 9:

Can you recall that?

GEN ERASMUS: It probably was the case that Johannesburg was the greatest point where mail etc., was intercepted, I don't know whether any stuff came from Cape Town, but I assume it would have. I never had anything to do with the library, it didn't fall under me, so post or whatever could have come from anywhere.

MR HATTINGH: Page 4, first paragraph:

Are you aware of that?

GEN ERASMUS: No.

MR HATTINGH: Paragraph 10, the first sentence:

I can't give you a positive answer to that, I don't know.

MR HATTINGH: But General, Major McPherson, was he in Group D before or after your time?

GEN ERASMUS: No, he was there, he was attached to Group D.

MR HATTINGH: Did he fall under your command?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And then it said:

Any comment on that?

GEN ERASMUS: McIntyre was not my successor, he was at the head office and when I left there I think Oosthuizen acted for a period and then Smit came, or Smith.

MR HATTINGH: Can you comment on the allegation that the cheques were physically collected at the offices by the Intelligence Unit, Group D? The reference to "our office" is then probably a reference to the library, Horak's library.

GEN ERASMUS: To give a clearer picture here, this library was at head office and we actually worked in a totally different building away from head office, so if these things were fetched then maybe that's the way it was, but I wasn't aware of it.

MR HATTINGH: Then there's the comment made by the author of this statement:

Can you comment on what those other obvious reasons would have been?

GEN ERASMUS: I don't know, I don't know this man at all, but I think he's making a mistake here.

MR HATTINGH: Paragraph 11:

Are you aware of any such meetings in, meetings held by Lieutenant-Colonel Horak at which he spoke about these matters?

GEN ERASMUS: You will see that my name doesn't appear there, I was never in that library, so I'm not aware of any of this.

MR HATTINGH: Can you give an explanation as to why the cheques would have been sent to Group D, the Security Branch?

GEN ERASMUS: The only answer I can give you is that at that stage I think there was an investigation into funds, not only funds belonging to unions but funds relating to all the radical organisations, to try and determine what kind of money was entering the country because the government at that stage intended to draft a legislation to confiscate these monies or to at least attempt to do so. That is the only explanation which I can give you.

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, if you would allow me a moment, I just want to see if there are any other matters.

General, just a last comment from me. You've seen the application and relevant evidence as it relates to yourself, and all I want to say to you is that he maintains that the allegations he made there are correct, but you differ from him on those points.

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, that's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh. Mr Rautenbach?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, maybe it will be a better idea if my colleague for NUMSA, if he proceeds first and then we'll see whether there are any matters that I would like to go into.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll do that. Mr Lengane?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LENGANE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Erasmus, I appear on behalf of NUMSA to oppose Mr Bellingan's application. I'd like to ask you what your personal inclinations are. You are aware, Mr Erasmus aren't you, that at the end of these proceedings this Honourable Committee will have to adjudicate on his application and then grant or refuse amnesty. Do you have any personal inclinations, Mr Erasmus, whether or not Mr Bellingan should be granted amnesty in this application?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, perhaps I'm out of line here, but I don't think, my personal opinion is and I would like to make the suggestion or submit that it's not up to the witness now to take over the responsibility of the Committee and express an opinion as to whether the applicant should be granted amnesty or not, it is something for this Committee to decide on the basis that it is supposed to do it and not on the basis of what another person may think of the application or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't know whether Mr Lengane wanted the witness' opinion or whether he wanted the witness to refer to factual matters. Perhaps you should clarify that, Mr Lengane, because his opinion would actually be irrelevant on the issue.

MR LENGANE: Mr Chairman, I just asked Mr Erasmus for his personal opinion, trying to set a basis upon which I will argue later on that his evidence that he'll give her today should be judged by the Committee. I was not asking him to take the decision on behalf of the Committee. But we could pass that, Mr Chairman, it doesn't matter.

Mr Erasmus, in your affidavit, Exhibit J before this Committee, you confirm the contents of the letter, I suppose written on your behalf by your legal representative, Mr Wagener, is that correct? The letter appears in bundle 4.

GEN ERASMUS: That's correct.

MR LENGANE: You say in your affidavit, well at least you confirm in the affidavit what is said in that letter and that letter says that you, Mr Erasmus, were aware of the project WH10, which was a project to intercept amongst other things, cheques that were directed at certain organisations and that NUMSA was one such organisation, is that what you confirm now?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, that's correct, there was confiscation of these things across a broad spectrum and then they were disposed of in some way.

MR LENGANE: Do I understand you, Mr Erasmus to be saying that the intention after these cheques had been intercepted was not to utilise them in the way that is suggested by Charl van der Merwe, but that the intention was finally to destroy them after gathering intelligence in some way?

GEN ERASMUS: As I've said, Chairperson, the cheques and other postal items were intercepted so that we could gather information and then these items were either released or they would be disposed of in some or other way. How that was done I don't know, that was not under my command so I can't answer you as to that part of it.

MR LENGANE: Mr Erasmus, did you have any role at all that you played in the WH10 projects throughout your stay as a policeman in the Security Branch?

GEN ERASMUS: I never had any dealings with that, it was part of the greater set-up.

MR LENGANE: Well you have heard that that is Mr Bellingan's case, that when he dealt in the way that he did with the NUMSA cheques, that that instruction had come from yourself and you have denied that, that is clear, but you also say that you know this was an official operation, it had been officially authorised and in fact, Mr Wagener your legal representative at Pretoria told this Committee that WH10 was authorised in terms of an Act of parliament and he called it at that time "Die Pos Wet", I suppose Article 118.

Does that correspond with your instruction to your attorneys, that the authorisation was in terms of this Act?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, that's correct and it was very strictly applied.

MR LENGANE: Did you know exactly what mechanisms, Mr Erasmus, what measures of control were put in place to safeguard the possibilities of individuals within various unit, the possibility of those individuals actually abusing these cheques, this project, by stealing cheques for self enrichment purposes?

GEN ERASMUS: It's very difficult for me to comment on that because if I just take Johannesburg and the "Gat" as it was mentioned here, thousands of postal items found its way there, I don't know maybe it's now been abolished, but the control which was exercised there was to the best of human ability, but I'm sure something could have slipped through.

MR LENGANE: Would it therefore surprise you, Mr Bellingan, if it turns out that in fact the way in which these cheques came, the way in which Mr Bellingan came by these cheques would have been precisely on the basis that it was possible for somebody to actually access wherever these cheques may have been put at the time and stolen them?

GEN ERASMUS: It is possible I suppose.

MR LENGANE: Mr Erasmus, I'd like to refer you to the statement made by David Walkley, David Walkley on bundle 2 page 643 to 648. On page 643, from the last paragraph of 643, ja that last paragraph continues on the next page and that is the paragraph as I see it, in which Dave Walkley makes an attempt to explain exactly the structures through which cheques that had been intercepted would have had to go and you know who amongst the structures had the authority to deal with these cheques, who if a junior was made to deal with these cheques, would have been responsible for the order to that junior and so on and so on. Do you see that, Mr Erasmus?

GEN ERASMUS: Sir, I see this paragraph and it starts on both WH10 and 11 - I beg your pardon. I think he's simply expressing an opinion, I don't think it was a fact that it always happened in this way.

MR LENGANE: That's okay, that's fine Mr Erasmus. Mr Erasmus, did you know a gentleman by the name of Mr Bastian Bouwer? I suppose his other names are Newton Glen Bouwer.

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, I knew him, he was a policemen also at the Security Branch.

MR LENGANE: You see, Mr Erasmus, Mr Bellingan has told this Committee that when you made the approach to him to deal in the manner that he did with NUMSA cheques, you actually asked him to do something and see if he cannot use his contacts, to quote him, in the banking world because you were not satisfied with a certain Colonel Putter if I'm not mistaken, in the manner in which he was dealing with these cheques with the Volkskas Bank. He then told this Committee that he contacted Mr Bastian Bouwer because he was known to him at that time and that you later came to know that Bastian Bouwer was in fact the person, the contact in the banking world. You'd obviously deny that wouldn't you?

GEN ERASMUS: To be honest, I didn't even know where Bastian Bouwer was, so I had no contact with him in this matter in this regard.

MR LENGANE: Could you kindly tell the Committee, Mr Erasmus, do you know how Bouwer left the Police Force?

GEN ERASMUS: Not at all, I know nothing about him.

MR LENGANE: General, I'd like you to please help me with a slight difficulty that I have here. You see at that time when Mr Bellingan dealt with these cheques this Committee was told that he was in fact assigned to the Personnel Development Section of Group D, is that correct?

GEN ERASMUS: I'm not entirely sure how things were grouped afterwards and I don't want to comment on that, but it is quite possible if somebody says that's the way it was.

MR LENGANE: He also told us that WH10 was a Stratcom operation and that the Personnel Development Section would not strictly speaking have been involved in that kind of operation.

GEN ERASMUS: That can't be true. I think Stratcom had to get their information from WH10, in terms of which they would then act.

MR LENGANE: No, no, Mr Erasmus, probably I did not articulate my questions properly to you. I say at the time that Mr Bellingan dealt with the NUMSA cheques, at the time he was stationed, or he had started, to put it in his words, he had started a Personnel Development Section and that fell within the broader Group D, as I understood his evidence and that the interception of cheques was in fact a project belonging to another section altogether, namely Stratcom, of which he admitted not to have been a part at the time. That is his evidence. And probably you don't need to answer that, I just needed to lay that basis for you for my next question.

In reply to questions, why would a person in personnel for example, have to be asked to deal with matters that belonged to another section such as Stratcom, in reply to such a question Mr Bellingan told this Committee that it was custom, it was practice that was generally followed within the force for a member to, as he puts it, take a proactive initiative and deal with matters even if they did not fall within his section. Was that procedure, was that kind of situation tolerated with the police to the best of your knowledge, Mr Erasmus?

GEN ERASMUS: To the best of my knowledge not.

MR LENGANE: Do you think it was possible that an officer could have acted so to speak, straddle across sections without authority from above?

GEN ERASMUS: I suppose it is possible.

MR LENGANE: So do you concede it is possible that Mr Bellingan could have simply moved from personnel and dealt with Stratcom matters because it was in the interest of the cause, as he put it, and that would have been tolerated in the police?

GEN ERASMUS: The question is rather ambiguous. He was an old Stratcom man and he surely, well they had moved and I don't know how close the old and the new offices were, that I can't remember, but I'm sure it's possible that he still had access to those premises.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but General, would he then be acting with the necessary authorisation if he was like jumping from the one to the other in this way?

GEN ERASMUS: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR LENGANE: Mr Erasmus, if an officer - and I'm indebted to you, Mr Chairman, for you to clarify that question for me.

I understand your evidence to be that that action, that kind of action would not have been tolerated in the force, for example for Mr Bellingan to move from personnel to go and interest himself in things that were more germane to another section such as Stratcom. Your reply as I understand it is that that would not have been tolerated, is that correct?

...(end of side A of tape 13)

GEN ERASMUS: ... correct.

MR LENGANE: Could you tell us, Mr Erasmus, what action would have been taken had an officer acted in this way, is there any action, perhaps disciplinary action that would have been taken against such a person if it came to the knowledge of the superiors that that is what he did?

GEN ERASMUS: He most certainly would have been reprimanded if there was any negligence or anything of that kind.

MR LENGANE: If I put a proposition to you, Mr Erasmus, that the reason why Mr Bellingan was not disciplined in this way was only because nobody else knew that he got interested in Stratcom matters, to be specific NUMSA, at the time when he was not a part of that section?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, it is possibly true.

MR LENGANE: Thank you, Mr Erasmus. Given that response, would you find it to be a fair assumption - you see it will be my client's case, that yes, there was an officially sanctioned interception of these cheques and yes, they were dealt with in the offices in the way that has already been testified to, it will be my client's case that Mr Bellingan used his presence around those offices to actually steal those cheques. Given your last two answers now, would that be a fair inference to draw from, if your version is to be believed, is that a fair proposition to make?

GEN ERASMUS: He would have to obtain it in some way or another. I can't say whether he stole it or if somebody had given it to him, that I don't know.

MR LENGANE: If I could get an indulgence please, Mr Chairman, I'm just looking through my notes, I'm about to finish my cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly, Mr Lengane.

MR LENGANE: Mr Erasmus, you testified in reply to Mr Hattingh's cross-examination of you, that you do not know and you cannot recall any Charl Petrus van der Merwe, who actually made this affidavit to which you were referred earlier on, on bundle 4.

GEN ERASMUS: I can't remember him at all, he never worked for me.

MR LENGANE: You see he does make reference in this affidavit to a few names of people who would have actually had any dealings at all with WH10 and by necessary implication, with matters such as the NUMSA cheques interceptions and so on and so on. He mentions your name there and he mentions Mr Bellingan's name as well. If I'm not mistaken I think he also mentions a number of organisations which were targeted in this kind of operation, including COSATU and organisations like that. If there ever was such a person as we are told now deposed to this affidavit, which I must say is doubtful, do you think that you would not have known him? He says that he was a Major in the force at the time, is it possible that a person who would have this information in that position would not have been known to you?

GEN ERASMUS: It's very possible. And I would also just like to ask you through the Chair, in what connection does he mention me there, according to you?

GEN ERASMUS: Well I'm trying to look through the pages here. If you look at page 6 - and I need to apologise to you in advance, my Afrikaans is not that good, if I have misunderstood something here that will be the reason, but my understanding of what appears on page 6, paginated page 6, paragraph 16, my understanding of the allegations in that paragraph is that here we have a list of people that this Major claims would have had dealings with WH10. Is that the correct understanding of this Afrikaans as it comes out there?

GEN ERASMUS: Chair, it doesn't actually have a lot of significance for me because I think every Security Policeman knew of WH10 and WH11, so this list really is not very meaningful or very important, he could actually have given the names of all the members of the Security Branch for that same reason. There are some people who had direct dealings with WH10, but I personally didn't have any dealings with it.

MR LENGANE: But do you recognise any other names here, apart from for example, Mr McPherson and Horak? Do you recognise any names there that you would have associated with WH10?

GEN ERASMUS: There is a - 16.11, there is a name mentioned, Koos Venter, I know him and the other people like Smith, Joubert, those were all senior people who didn't deal with this kind of thing directly.

MR LENGANE: Did you say these are people who didn't deal with WH10 directly?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, that's correct, I'm saying these senior people such as Smith, Joubert and people like those, they didn't have direct dealings with WH10, they presumably gained intelligence out of those things but they didn't deal with it directly.

MR LENGANE: I have no further questions, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach, do you have any questions at this stage?

MR RAUTENBACH: No questions at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaskalson?

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Chairman, I have a few questions, but I shouldn't be more than five minutes or so.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I might have to go on the reliability of your estimate there. I wanted to take the adjournment for lunch. We were going to take a shorter adjournment for lunch.

MR CHASKALSON: I'll be no longer than 10 minutes and I will try and keep it under that. I think if you bear with me we can then excuse this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, I'm overruled.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CHASKALSON: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

General Erasmus, I'm under some time constraints now. You have told us before that you have applied for amnesty, that is correct?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes, I have.

MR CHASKALSON: And in that application for amnesty do you apply for any eliminations?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes.

MR CHASKALSON: If the murder by the applicant was an officially sanctioned state project, would there have been any - and you were involved, would there have been any reason why you could not have applied for amnesty for that act?

GEN ERASMUS: I would definitely have applied for amnesty.

MR CHASKALSON: So the suggestion that might be made that you have not applied for amnesty and therefore your testimony should not be believed is not one that we should attach too much importance to?

GEN ERASMUS: That's correct.

MR CHASKALSON: General, in regard to the WH10 operations, as far as I understand it you had said that this was an old operation and what it really related to was the interception of post and/or telephone conversations, correct?

GEN ERASMUS: Yes. I'd just like to add that there was a lot of pornography and stuff that was intercepted, but the major purpose was to gain intelligence and information.

MR CHASKALSON: And you also testified that at that point in time there was also certain legislation that was being drafted and this might feed into possibly curtailing how certain organisations would receive funding from outside the country or even inside the country?

GEN ERASMUS: Correct.

MR CHASKALSON: Now what seems to be a little bit in debate is how those cheques would be utilised. From my understanding of your testimony nothing would happen to those cheques, or alternatively they would be destroyed.

GEN ERASMUS: No, what I said was that there were two possible avenues, either they were shredded or they were released.

MR CHASKALSON: Are you aware of any official operation in which a decision was made to try and cash those cheques, in other words to steal money which was intended to other organisations?

GEN ERASMUS: Not that I was aware of.

MR CHASKALSON: The applicant states that you were instrumental in this idea and that in fact you requested him to come up with a plan to utilise these monies as the cheques were just lying around and going stale.

GEN ERASMUS: No, Chairperson, there couldn't have been things lying around because it had to either be shredded or released by a certain time.

MR CHASKALSON: General, that would have the same affect in a sense because if, as I understand the applicant the worry was that the organisations were losing the cheques but those cheques were never cashed, they could therefore request whoever had sent the cheque in the first place to issue a new cheque and they would then cash that cheque, so they wouldn't suffer any financial harm. The applicant is suggesting that this would be a manner of utilising the enemy's resources for police business. Are you aware of any ...(indistinct)?

GEN ERASMUS: No, Chairperson.

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you, General, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wagener, have you got anything else before I excuse the witness?

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, no thank you, except Mr Rautenbach indicated he has got no questions at this stage, will there be another stage?

MR RAUTENBACH: I still have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps in a different application. Alright. General, under those circumstances you are then excused, thank you.

GEN ERASMUS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take the luncheon adjournment which will be shortened and we will reconvene in 30 minutes time.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we have managed in the meantime to resolve the difficulty around the Xhosa interpreter, so we would in the circumstances be able to ... We'll continue with the testimony of Ms Eugenia Mangqawa.

Ms Mangqawa, good afternoon.

MS MANGQAWA: Good afternoon.

CHAIRPERSON: We apologise ... we could not hear your evidence first thing this morning as we had thought we would be able to do, but that was due to a problem with getting the interpreter to this venue. We have managed to solve that now and the interpreter is present, so we are going to continue and hopefully complete your testimony. I'm just going to remind you simply, before the questioning continues, that you are still under your previous oath.

EUGENIA MANGQAWA: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: (Cont)

Eugenia, how did it come about that you became involved in this hearing and that you were brought here to testify at this hearing?

MS MANGQAWA: I used to work for Mrs Bellingan and Mr Bellingan.

MR HATTINGH: But who approached you and made the arrangements for you to be present at this hearing now?

MS MANGQAWA: There was a phone call at work that there were people who were looking for me about her death.

MR HATTINGH: And when was that?

MS MANGQAWA: It was during the Easter weekend.

MR HATTINGH: Of this year?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, this year.

MR HATTINGH: And the people that you then contacted and discussed the matter with are the people next to you, is that correct?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, it is them.

MR HATTINGH: And you told them everything that you knew about the Bellingan family and the problems that were experienced there?

MS MANGQAWA: ...(no English interpretation)

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I think the translator indicated that he did not hear the last answer.

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, ...(indistinct) discussions with them.

MR HATTINGH: Sorry Mr Chairman, I did not quite hear the translation.

CHAIRPERSON: It was unfortunately cut off. Can the interpreter just repeat the answer please.

INTERPRETER: Yes, I did have discussions with them.

MR HATTINGH: But the question was, did you explain or tell them everything that you knew?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, I explained to them everything that I knew.

MR HATTINGH: And what you told them, the legal representatives, is exactly the same or is exactly the same as what you told at this hearing, is that correct?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, it is.

MR HATTINGH: When did you become aware about this murder of Mrs Bellingan that was in 1991, September 1991? When was the first time that you heard of this murder?

MS MANGQAWA: I heard it on the same Saturday that she was murdered.

MR HATTINGH: Did you at a time consider Mr Bellingan as a suspect for this murder?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, I saw him as a suspect.

MR HATTINGH: Did you have discussions with Lydia, the woman who was working with the Bellingans in their house at the time, did you have discussions with her on that Saturday?

MS MANGQAWA: I did not have any discussions with Lydia.

MR HATTINGH: Did you subsequent to that Saturday, at any stage discuss with Lydia the events or the murder of Mrs Bellingan?

MS MANGQAWA: I had nothing to discuss with her.

MR HATTINGH: At the time on that Saturday, the day of the murder, why did you consider Mr Bellingan as your suspect?

MS MANGQAWA: On the previous Saturday I came there and the two of us were together and she said to me: "Because ...(indistinct) that couch is because we don't talk to each other and I think that he might murder me or else he'll run away from the country."

MR HATTINGH: I did not quite get you. What you're saying is that there was a discussion between yourself and Mrs Bellingan and that's what made you think that Mr Bellingan was the suspect in this murder, is that correct?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: But when the police - let me put the question in another manner. You saw the police, the investigating officer came to speak to you on the 16th of January 1992, is that correct?

MS MANGQAWA: That is not true.

MR HATTINGH: Did the investigating officer come to see you?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, he did come. The other person was called Captain Steyn.

MR HATTINGH: Now Captain Steyn made a note in his investigating diary that on the 16th of January 1992, he spoke to you and you could not give him any information, do you agree to that?

MS MANGQAWA: Which January is that?

MR HATTINGH: 1992.

MS MANGQAWA: I did not tell him the truth because I was scared of my life.

MR HATTINGH: What was the reason - let me first ask you, is it correct that at the time when you stayed with the Bellingans your friend or husband, Justice, also stayed there, is that correct?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Now what was the reason for your and Justice's leaving the employ of Mr and Mrs Bellingan?

MS MANGQAWA: I was employed there.

MR HATTINGH: Why did you leave the employ of the Bellingans?

MS MANGQAWA: Justice lost his job at the municipality offices and then Mr Bellingan told him to work in the garden. After a while his wife, she told me that the husband said that we should move out of the house because we were Xhosa speaking and our lives were in danger.

MR HATTINGH: So your answer is you had to move out of the house because your lives were in danger, is that what you said?

MS MANGQAWA: He said his life was in danger because we were Xhosa, because I told everyone that he was a policeman.

MR HATTINGH: Wasn't there another reason for this development, namely that there was the allegation that Justice did something to Katie, the little daughter, which was then conveyed to the parents of Katie?

MS MANGQAWA: One day the mother of Katie came to the house and said that Justice had touched her private parts, but we could see that she was talking a childish talk, but that thing did not cause any trouble.

MR HATTINGH: Was that not the reason for your leaving the employ of the Bellingans?

MS MANGQAWA: That is not the reason.

MR HATTINGH: After you'd left the employ of the Bellingans, is it correct that a lady by the name of Pauline then worked for them?

MS MANGQAWA: I know her by name, I never saw her by eye contact.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know what her present whereabouts are?

MS MANGQAWA: I don't know her whereabouts because I never met her physically.

MR HATTINGH: And Lydia, do you know where she can be found at this stage?

MS MANGQAWA: I also don't know where she is.

MR HATTINGH: I would now like to turn to the incident of the clothes outside the house and in the boot of the car. What time of the morning was that?

MS MANGQAWA: It was after seven.

MR HATTINGH: And what happened was that the clothes were outside the house and Mr Bellingan, the applicant, then took the clothes back into the house, is that correct?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, he asked Mrs Bellingan whether he should put her clothes at her mother's or her father's house. She said that she was still waiting for the police and then he left. He went to the boot and returned them back to the house.

MR HATTINGH: During this incident there was no indication of any form of force, assault or injuries, is that correct?

MS MANGQAWA: When I arrived at the house the bed was not made because there was a quarrel the previous night because he was drunk.

MR HATTINGH: The question was, during this incident there was no indication of anything that you could see of anything of an assault or injuries, is that correct?

MS MANGQAWA: No, she was not beaten on that day.

MR HATTINGH: Did you go to school, do you have form of education?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, I did go to school.

MR HATTINGH: To what standard did you go?

MS MANGQAWA: Standard seven.

MR HATTINGH: The issue of the briefcase that Mrs Bellingan opened while you were keeping watch, just explain to me, did you stand at the window all the time or what was the position?

MS MANGQAWA: She called me whilst I was outside and I got inside. I stood next to the window looking at the gate.

MR HATTINGH: Now while you were at the window, where was Mrs Bellingan?

MS MANGQAWA: She was next to the table with the briefcase closer to the window.

MR HATTINGH: How far away from you was she?

MS MANGQAWA: It was not a long distance.

MR HATTINGH: Could you just perhaps indicate how far away she was?

MS MANGQAWA: Where I'm sitting here she could be over the table, not far away from me.

MR HATTINGH: Did you together with her look through the documentation in the briefcase?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, we did.

MR HATTINGH: You made mention of two cheques, and perhaps before asking the next question, did you make any notes or statement about this matter prior to today?

MS MANGQAWA: I only made a statement to Captain Steyn when he came there at the beginning.

MR HATTINGH: But until recently you hadn't made any written note about what happened in the period 1988 to 1990?

MS MANGQAWA: Except the people who are next to me, who arrived during the Easter weekend and Captain Steyn.

MR HATTINGH: But you say that after - or perhaps just first, could you indicate when was this incident when you and Mrs Bellingan went through the briefcase of the applicant, can you give us any indication?

INTERPRETER: Can the speaker please repeat the question for the interpreter?

MR HATTINGH: Can you give any indication as to when this incident took place, the incident of the opening of the briefcase?

MS MANGQAWA: It was on a Saturday.

MR HATTINGH: You worked with them from December 1988 until October 1990, in relation to those two dates can you give any indication as to when this incident took place?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, it is true that I worked for them from 1988, but this happened whilst I was no longer working there.

MR HATTINGH: You say this incident occurred when you had already left their employ, is that correct?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, I'd already left, but already they knew where I was working.

ADV GCABASHE: I'm sorry Mr Hattingh, can I just get some clarity on this?

Which incident are you referring to, the one that occurred when you were no longer working there?

MS MANGQAWA: It's the murder incident.

ADV GCABASHE: The advocate was asking about the briefcase incident, the time that you were standing at the window and Mrs Bellingan was going through the briefcase, when, during the time that you worked there, when did this happen, '88, '89, '90, can you remember?

MS MANGQAWA: I think it was in 1990.

ADV GCABASHE: And then in relation to 1990, towards the end of your time with the Bellingans or earlier in 1990? - just give the advocate an idea.

MS MANGQAWA: It occurred whilst I was still under their employ, between March and April.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Now you made mention of two cheques that you saw there on that day, do you know the difference between a cheque and a deposit slip?

MS MANGQAWA: I do not know.

MR HATTINGH: You say you can remember the amounts of the two cheques.

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, I remember them.

MR HATTINGH: What were they?

MS MANGQAWA: The other had R4 000, the other one

R9 000.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, there seems to be an indication from the interpreter that he, he showed something that the witness must repeat the answer or something. I just saw him indicating.

MS MANGQAWA: R49 000 and R4 000. It was R49 000 and the other one was R4 000.

MR HATTINGH: Now the cheque of R49 000, could you just indicate who signed the cheque or in favour of whom was this cheque made out?

MS MANGQAWA: There was a smaller cheque. The smaller cheque was written Judy White at the bottom - the smaller cheque and Judy White and then at the bottom it was written N NUMSA.

MR HATTINGH: So on this one cheque for the amount of R4 000 it was in favour of Judy White and the bottom signed by N UMSA?

MS MANGQAWA: Could you please repeat yourself, Sir?

MR HATTINGH: This smaller cheque in the amount of

R4 000 was made out in favour of Judy White and it was signed by N NUMSA or N UMSA, just clarify that.

MS MANGQAWA: It was to Judy White from N UMSA.

MR HATTINGH: And the R49 000 cheque?

MS MANGQAWA: ...(indistinct) NUMSA.

MR HATTINGH: Sorry I did not get the answer, was it in favour of NUMSA or what the position, and signed by whom?

MS MANGQAWA: I did not know who the money was sent to, but at the bottom his wife showed me that it was written NUMSA. They were stealing NUMSA's money.

MR HATTINGH: You also made mention of the fact that some documents were destroyed or burnt by Mr Bellingan, is that correct?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, he was making fire behind the house and then when we went back to the house we found out that he had burnt everything, every document that was in the house.

...(end of side B, tape 13)

MR HATTINGH: Referring back to the occasion of the chips, I just want to put it to you that this only occasion of which you tell us what you heard from Mrs Bellingan about an assault, Mr Bellingan denies ever assaulting her as testified by you. Do you have any comment?

MS MANGQAWA: What I can say is that what happened at the house was that I came to the house and there were chips all over the floor and I asked her what happened, she said to me Michael had hit her and he was beating her all over the house, throwing the chips away at her face.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Bellingan, the applicant, also denies ever having a cheque for the amount mentioned, R4 000, made out in favour of Judy White.

MS MANGQAWA: There was a cheque because I saw it and she told me that he was sending the money to his sister, which was the money from the union.

MR HATTINGH: Can you remember the date of the incident when the tape recorder was placed in the ceiling?

MS MANGQAWA: I cannot remember the date, but when he installed it I was there in the house.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know whether Mr Bellingan was aware of your presence?

MS MANGQAWA: He knew that I was in the house.

MR HATTINGH: The burning of the documentation that took place, was that in the presence or openly done by Mr Bellingan in the presence of Mrs Bellingan or not?

MS MANGQAWA: She was there. She's the one who told me that there was charcoal at the back of the house, there were pieces of burnt paper.

MR HATTINGH: So what you say now is you did not see Mr Bellingan burn the documentation, you were told by Mrs Bellingan about this incident?

MS MANGQAWA: I never saw him because it was on a Saturday and I was not working, so I heard from his wife that he burnt the documents.

MR HATTINGH: Was there any occasion on which Mrs Bellingan took any of the documents with her from the briefcase into her possession?

MS MANGQAWA: Whilst she had opened the briefcase she needed some papers that she could take from the documents before he arrived. She said that she could write whatever she could write and then she put them into a plastic and then she said to me I should put the plastic into her room, she'll take it with her to work the following day where she will use her computer to write them down.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know whether Mrs Bellingan took any of the burnt documentation?

MS MANGQAWA: I don't remember whether she took away from the burnt papers.

MR HATTINGH: What was your opinion of the Security Police at the time, 1991?

ADV GCABASHE: Can you just repeat the question please, Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: What was your opinion of the Security Police at the time, that was 1991?

MS MANGQAWA: I was not longer working there and I was not even close to the police.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh. Mr Lengane, any questions?

MR LENGANE: No thank you, Mr Chairman, no questions.

MR CHASKALSON: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wagener?

MR WAGENER: No questions thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach, any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, Mr Chairman, very shortly.

Firstly, you said something to the effect that when you left the employment of Mr Bellingan, something of Xhosas was mentioned and someone was in fear of their lives. It's not clear, who was in fear of whose lives?

MS MANGQAWA: Mrs Bellingan said to me the reason why her husband said I should stop working there is because Mr Bellingan was scared of the family of his life because we were Xhosa. It might happen that I tell everyone that he was a policeman.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then secondly, when the briefcase was opened, it's not clear I think to everyone here, whether Mrs Bellingan in fact removed documents from the briefcase or whether she made notes of the documents without removing documents, which one of the two? It's not clear.

MS MANGQAWA: She took notes of what was written on the documents in the briefcase and the she returned them.

MR RAUTENBACH: I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just explain one aspect. Was Mrs Bellingan aware of the tape recording that Mr Bellingan had put into the roof?

MS MANGQAWA: Because he had installed it whilst she was at work, he put inside whilst she was still at work and I told her that he arrived and installed the tape recorder at the ceiling. I told her myself that it was on the ceiling.

CHAIRPERSON: Did she do anything further about it, did she try to remove it or try to look where it was or anything like that?

MS MANGQAWA: She took the stepladder and looked for it. She did not take it because she was scared that he might know that she heard it from me. And he arrived. And then the following day she said she will phone me at work to confirm if it was there.

When she came back in the evening she said that she heard that it's there on the roof and it was connected to the telephone.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you tell her on that same day that you saw Mr Bellingan putting the tape recorder in the roof?

MS MANGQAWA: Yes, I told her that day and Mr Bellingan was not there at that moment, he had already gone.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Chairperson, no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mangqawa, thank you very much for coming, you are excused.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAIRPERSON: I intend to revert to Mr Bellingan who was recalled at the instance of the family of the deceased in order to respond to some issues that Mr Rautenbach intended to put to him. In the course of that process a question arose in regard to the situation of a certain document that was presented to Mr Bellingan, which he identified as something that was in his handwriting and which he had prepared and the matter subsequently stood down in order to allow the applicant's legal representatives to take full instructions in regard to the status of that particular statement.

Now before we proceed with that, I'm just going to remind you, Mr Bellingan that you're still under your previous oath.

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, you wanted to take instructions in regard to the question of this statement or document that was produced and you were going to indicate to us what your client's position is in regard to the document, whether or not there is a formal objection on the basis of a privilege, which you alluded to at the last session. Have you managed to clarify the matter and received full instructions now?

MR HATTINGH ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Yes, we will object to the document being submitted to this Committee. The objection will be based on two reasons. The first would be on the basis of the document being privileged, and before addressing you in full on that I would like to turn and deal with the other issue first.

The second issue is that I believe that the handing in of this document at this stage in the proceedings is totally out of the order in the sense that it makes a mockery of these proceedings to hand a document of this nature in at this late stage and should therefore not be allowed.

The position is that this document, and perhaps Mr Rautenbach can assist us in this regard, this document came into the possession of Mr Rautenbach and/or his team or the Legal Resources Centre, if not last week, sorry not last week, the week before last week, or at the latest sometime during early last week. However, it was only brought to the attention of this Committee and if it was made to submit it to this Committee only on Friday, at the time when the applicant was not under cross-examination any longer.

Now clearly the applicant was under cross-examination until, if my memory serves me right, on Thursday, so if ever Mr Rautenbach wanted to confront the applicant with this document he could have done so during the course, the proper time to do so.

There is no indication that at the time when he said he reserved one issue to perhaps to come back to that at a later stage with Mr Bellingan, any indication as to why there was not dealt with that issue at the time.

The problem is that at least, and while I have made myself also guilty of allowing the process not to be followed very strictly when I consulted with the applicant between cross-examination and re-examination and the fact that I in re-examination actually perhaps may have introduced new matters of dealt with matters in a manner which was not the normal way of doing re-examination, but for that there was a particular reason, but for Mr Rautenbach at this stage to allow the opportunity when he was given the opportunity at the time, to confront the applicant with the document, why he allowed that opportunity to go by without doing it at the time ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I understood and I think you heard him as well, I understood that when your client was still, or when his questioning was not completed, Mr Rautenbach indicated that there was an issue that he would want to reserve the right to come back on, subject to verifying or investigating the source of a document that he obviously had in his possession at that stage, which obviously must have been this document that has been produced, which is now in dispute.

At that stage we indicated that we will deal with that when it does arise, but in any event it's not as if it was something that was presented to the applicant out of the blue, there was an indication that this was coming.

So the question is, just on this first leg of your argument, what is there, is there any prejudice to your client arising from this process, from having to now deal with this document which he admits having prepared, admits is in his handwriting?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, well firstly, perhaps it's something that Mr Rautenbach can explain, but the verification of the source of the document at the time is something that I do not quite understand because all along we are aware of the fact that the present wife of the applicant made this document available to the Legal Resources Centre and that was something that occurred, not on Thursday or Friday, that was something that occurred at the latest on Monday of last week. So the verification of the source is something that was really not the issue at the time.

However, what the problem is or was at the time, or is for us now, is the prejudice that the applicant stood to suffer because of this. The applicant was let, or allowed to proceed with his case, call witnesses, decide on how to take his case further. And you will also remember, Mr Chairman, that at the time, that was the only occasion after he closed his case that I was given the opportunity of really consulting with client, I was given the opportunity of consulting with client at last to obtain his instructions for me on the further handling of this matter. So when it was decided on which witnesses to call or not to call, something, the whole ...(indistinct) of trial by ambush then very much came into play, because now Mr Rautenbach had some document in his possession which he knew would cause or could cause a problem for the applicant which may embarrass him at some stage depending on the way the applicant was going to further his case.

Now what I say is if Mr Rautenbach had no apparent reason at the time not to deal with the document then, he should not be allowed at this stage to hand in this document and deal with the document at this stage only to the prejudice and to embarrass the applicant because the applicant then elected to proceed in the furtherance of his case by calling certain witnesses.

We've all read the document, the Committee has seen the document, we all know the implications of this document to the extent to which it may perhaps reflect on the credibility of certain witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't understand the difficulty, Mr Hattingh. Your client indicated when this question was raised by Mr Rautenbach, he indicated this is a fictitious document, he said this was a cover story, this was - in other words, this was something that he had worked out, he was working out a fictitious approach to the case, to the murder and if one takes what he says at face value, this document is worth absolutely nothing. So I can't understand what is the prejudice for him now to deal with the document, to tell us what it's all about and see how it fits into his case, if it does fit in at all.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I've explained the reasons why I believe that at this stage it would be improper to, and to only embarrass the applicant. However, the other issue is the matter of privilege. I'm just saying that this document, those are the instructions of my client, this document was prepared for the purposes of the criminal trial or the criminal prosecution at the time.

I'm also instructed that this document was not in fact handed to his attorney, but it was in any event prepared for that purpose and not for anyone else. And in the circumstances this document would still be a privileged document irrespective of the fact that the document may have been taken from his private notes by his present wife and then handed to the Legal Resources Centre. So at this stage I'm not going to take it any further, I'm just making these two remarks. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Just clarify one thing to us, Mr Hattingh, to whom was this document addressed? In other words, who is the "you" that is referred to in the body of the document?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, my instruction are that the you would be Mr Bellingan's father, although this document was never sent to him or submitted to him or discussed with him, it was a matter of a document which he prepared for the purposes of his attorney in discussions but which he never used, but the "you" would have been his father.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is a document that is addressed to his father, prepared for the purposes of his lawyers?

MR HATTINGH: Those are the instructions from my client. It's a document, on the face of it, addressed or written in a manner to indicate that he is addressing his father, but the document was prepared at the time as being a fictitious document to give to his attorney in preparation for the criminal proceedings, but it never reached his attorney, it never reached his father.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Hattingh, what is then the basis for the privilege if it never reached the attorney? On what do you base the privilege?

MS MANGQAWA: Mr Chairman, I would submit that privilege not only comes into play once you've finally got the message over to your legal representative, but also when you are in the process of preparing something for his eyes as being instructions, even though they may not yet reach them. As long as they are prepared for the purpose of and the intention of some trial or legal proceeding which is foreseeable.

ADV BOSMAN: ...(indistinct) no difficulty if it was addressed to his legal representative, but there's no indication of the document being addressed to his legal representative, it's addressed to his father.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I agree with that and I cannot take that further. At best I can say that the instructions of the applicant are that this document, although on the face of it it is addressed to his father, this was intended as his notes to be used with his attorney although it never reached his attorney. The applicant is relying on privilege with regard to these notes. But I cannot take it any further to indicate or prove that this document was in fact submitted to his attorney.

I may just perhaps just add that contact was made with the attorney, not by myself, but I've been advised that contact was made with the particular attorney at the time and that this document was in fact not submitted to him at the time.

So it's not the case of the applicant that this document was in fact submitted to his attorney and that we perhaps could call on the attorney to come and testify and to say that yes, I did receive this document but I told the applicant that this was not possible, I couldn't do this or that. This is not the case of the applicant. He says I did prepare it to be given to my attorney, I never did so.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach, have you got any submissions?

MR RAUTENBACH ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Yes, Mr Chairman. Firstly, I would just like to immediately make the point that this document could never have been intended to reach his attorney, and the reason for that, Mr Chairman, is as easy as this; he says this document is part of a cover-up, the document forms part of a cover-up, he wants to have an alibi, he needs support from his family to cover for himself. So to suggest that this document was intended for his attorney cannot be, because that would make his attorney part of the cover-up. And we all know the professional ethics involved here. If he made this document, or ever intended to make this document available to his attorney, he's actually telling him; I am busy getting a phantom witness or I'm getting a witness which will cover up for me.

So just based on that it's almost impossible that this document could ever have been intended to reach his attorney. And that I submit, Mr Chairman, is the reason why it never reached his attorney, because that would have put his attorney in a situation where he would have been a situation where he had no choice but to withdraw from the matter.

Secondly, as far as the privilege is concerned, the mere fact that the document is in the hands of a third party and a third party is in possession of that document, it's my submission that that alone is enough to bring an end to the privilege. We're not dealing with a situation where we're asking for a document and the witness indicated, or an accused or whoever, an applicant indicated that that document I am not prepared to hand over because the document is privileged. Like for instance, in any civil matter where we would ask for a specific document and the answer is no, you can't get it, this document is a document that was in the hands of third parties.

On those two - and then there is one last point I have to make here, the applicant also applied for amnesty regarding the cover-up of the murder. Now this document is a document about the cover-up of the murder. He at one stage made these notes, he already admitted that, he's the author of this document, in order to cover up, in order to get just another witness that may assist him in his cover-up.

Now Mr Chairman, I submit this is the type of document that should have been placed before you in these proceedings to actually, especially when one deals with full disclosure, where if he really wanted to fully disclose all the facts he would have said to you, he would have taken the Committee into his confidence and said; here is another document, this is what I intended to do, this is what I did, I got up to writing out the document, I in fact didn't go further than that, but this is also a document also part of my, something that I considered during the cover-up process. It forms part of what is before you, of an application for amnesty regarding the cover-up, so there is, Mr Chairman with respect, no basis whatsoever to exclude the document.

As far as the second leg of the argument is concerned, and that is that I should have made the document or should have raised the document at an earlier stage. The document was received - and I'll put that on record, the week before, Wednesday, round about the Wednesday before the week of the hearing of this matter. You will recall at the end of Mr Bellingan's cross-examination I raised the fact that we are in possession of the document, and the only reason why it wasn't at that stage mentioned and dealt with was only a matter of courtesy towards the source. Obviously we had to listen to the rest of the evidence of Mr Bellingan, obviously we had to consider the document and make a decision and when that was done I specifically, when it was my turn to say something, told you Mr Chairman, that it is, we wanted to make contact with the source. So it was basically merely a matter of courtesy. That was the only reason why we didn't at that stage just go on with the document as such. So that is as far as the second leg is concerned.

On those two points, Mr Chairman, I submit that there is no reason why the applicant cannot be confronted with the contents thereof. I also took notice thereof that he basically already has an answer on record, being that this is all, it's a fictional document. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, have you got any further submissions?

MR HATTINGH ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Mr Chairman, only inasmuch that I would like to put on record that this document was never made available to third parties, it formed part of the applicant's documentation which obviously was left in the custody of his present wife, but not for her to have sight thereof or to disclose it, but only for her to safekeep this document, not for publication to her. And if she then took this document and whatever documents the applicant had or has and then made it available to other parties, it does not then mean that the applicant has waived his right to this privilege.

There is however something else. The applicant obviously is a person who relies on the privilege and I do not quite know how this Committee would like to deal with this issue at this stage. I do however know that perhaps before this Committee makes a ruling with regard to privilege or not, perhaps this Committee may wish to make a preliminary ruling in that regard, but I do know that the applicant in fact would like to address this whole issue and he would like to tell the Committee about this document and the circumstances under which this document left his hands and got into the hands of the Legal Resources Centre.

Now I don't want to prescribe to this Committee as to how this should be accommodated, but I do however know that the applicant has got something to say about the existence of this document, the privilege, even before going into the contents thereof. I don't know whether this Committee will be able to accommodate that before making a ruling on either the fact that this came into this hearing at such a late stage to embarrass the applicant or the privilege that may or may not be placed on that document.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, may I just add, the applicant when we arrived this morning, had prepared his own affidavit in this regard. This affidavit was then made available to Mr Rautenbach as well as Mr Chaskalson to read and it is the contents of this affidavit that he would like to testify about, or just to read that out to this Committee for what it is worth.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the applicant is still under oath and he is in the witness stand at this stage. We want to make a ruling on the objection and then we can proceed with the matter.

This is a ruling on the admissibility of a document which has been produced during further cross-examination of the applicant by Mr Rautenbach who appears on behalf of the family of the deceased, and which was partly dealt with in the testimony under cross-examination of the applicant, whereafter Mr Hattingh who represents the applicant in these proceedings raised or first of all asked for an opportunity to consider how the applicant proposes approaching the use of the document in these proceedings and whether or not wants to raise a formal objection to the admissibility of the document in question.

The testimony of the applicant stood down. We listened to testimony of further witnesses and we have reached a stage where the applicant was recalled and Mr Hattingh given an opportunity to give a clear indication as to their intention in regard to the document.

Mr Hattingh has then responded to that request and has raised a formal objection to the admissibility of the document in question on two grounds. Firstly he indicates that it would be an abuse of the process of this tribunal for Mr Rautenbach to be allowed at this stage to make use of the document in question. Mr Hattingh submitted that this would amount to trial by ambush and it is only intended to embarrass the applicant and the applicant would be prejudiced, although when he was invited to specify the grounds of prejudice he failed to add any further substantial argument to the question of prejudice.

The objection is of course opposed by Mr Rautenbach who appears for the family. And in regard to this first ground of opposition it appears as if the document in question has come into the possession of the legal representatives of the family of the deceased. It was apparently handed over by the existing wife of the applicant and according to Mr Rautenbach the document came into his possession, or in the possession of the legal representatives at approximately Wednesday, the Wednesday before these proceedings recommenced.

Mr Rautenbach in opposing the application indicated quite rightly that at a stage prior to conclusion of the applicant's testimony and cross-examination he did indicate that he was in possession of a document which he needed to take some further instructions on and obtain further clarity, amongst other things about the source of the document and that he reserves the right to raise the matter and to present the particular outstanding issues to the applicant should he be so advised, which he has done in the meantime as I have indicated.

The second ground of objecting to the admissibility of the document is that of privilege. Mr Hattingh indicates that the document in question was prepared for the purposes of the criminal trial of the applicant on the murder charge, which forms the subject matter of one of the grounds of this amnesty application, and that it was intended to be handed to his attorney although it has never been actually handed over to the attorney.

On questions from the Panel it appears that the document has been addressed to the applicant's father, as is also apparent from a reading of the document, although in his further cross-examination when the matter was raised, the applicant indicated that this was a fictitious document, he referred to it as a cover story. In other words, it was something that he had simply prepared as an option, one of various options to approach the case against him.

We have listened to all of these arguments. We are as usual under severe time constraints and we are compelled to make an immediate ruling on the objection, and for that reason we at this stage give only those reasons which we feel are relevant for the immediate purposes and if needs be would make a fuller ruling and present full reasons on the ruling itself.

Having considered the arguments we are satisfied that there is no basis for the objection and the objection is accordingly REFUSED. The legal representatives of the family of the deceased are accordingly allowed to make use of the document in the further questioning of the applicant.

-------------

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach, have you got any further questions?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, it seems to me it will be Exhibit V?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, V.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: (Cont)

Mr Bellingan, when one looks at this document and you read the words:

... in the first paragraph. In the second paragraph, the name:

... and a discussion. And then:

Will I be correct if I say that the Friday when you wrote this document, that the Friday that you referred to refers to the day before the murder, or not?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, can I just say that I see Mr Hattingh is preserving with this document, it's quite clear, and in order for me to address my other concern which I raised, that regarding the Bill of Rights, I'm going to need to have to motivate that and to motivate that I'm going to have to rely upon the statement I made handed to Mr Rautenbach this morning.

CHAIRPERSON: In what connection is that, Mr Bellingan?

MR BELLINGAN: It's regarding the fact that I believe that my rights under the Bill of Rights are being infringed by the use of the document, Mr Chairman, because it is a document which relates to an extortion matter and I can't see how Legal Resources Centre wants to make themselves party to that and unless I put it on record and explain it, they may not be aware of that, although I think they've read my statement. ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry Mr Bellingan to intervene. Are you attempting to raise a further objection to this document or what is the purpose of what you want to put on record?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, it's not a - it's something I raised initially, the question that the Bill of Rights doesn't permit evidence obtained in a manner which in any way can bring justice into disrepute.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it seems that your wife has handed the document to Mr Rautenbach, now what can be irregular or unusual about that? What is the basis for suggesting that there was anything untoward in Mr Rautenbach's possession of the document?

MR BELLINGAN: Because it is a document which has been an attempt to get me to halt certain investigations into mine an my children's financial affairs, Mr Chairman, and there has been a huge amount of pressure put on me in connection with this and other documents and my files etc., etc., etc., and one of the aspects is that this document was then used in that regard. So unless I can bring the background to the Committee's attention, then it won't be clear as to how exactly my rights are being violated.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Bellingan, I am ...(intervention)

MR BELLINGAN: I did raise the issue of the violation of the Bill of Rights immediately when this document was presented to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I'm very reluctant to allow a fresh argument to be rehashed around the use of this. We've just made a ruling, your counsel had presented a full argument to us on all the grounds for objecting and as I've indicated we have to get these proceedings to a close at some or other stage. We're very reluctant to engage in a new sort of rehash, so it is with great reluctance that I'm going to allow you to present whatever version you want to present about the existence or the possession of LRC in regard to the document. I'm quite sure, Mr Rautenbach if he is so advised, might want to deal with that, but go ahead let's hear.

MR BELLINGAN ADDRESSES COMMITTEE ON AFFIDAVIT AND BILL OF RIGHTS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'll make it as quick as I can. The statement that I handed in this morning reads as follows:

...(end of side A Tape 14)

I also in this connection have certain tape recordings, Mr Chairman.

I think it's Annexure G, letters handed in by Attorneys Strydom. I refer to that in that regard. And the prejudice to me already at that stage is quite obvious.

It's Annexure G, Mr Chairman, a letter from Strydom Britz.

... this document marked "Extracts from Statement".

That is the way it was put to me by Renata. She understood it involved Judy and that's how she put it to me first.

I'm not going to bore the Committee because I accept it may only come close to privilege, but I accept is not privilege now. Then I go on to say:

And it is ironic when considering the use, my use of the word of insidious in my amnesty application. The Latin for that is ambush.

It is a background, Mr Chairman, as I see it. And then as far as the rights which I believe have been violated, it is the right in:

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the statement?

MR BELLINGAN: That's my statement and then my reflections on the Bill of Rights, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Rautenbach, have you got any questions?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, is that any comment regarding the facts put before you by Mr Bellingan, or are you asking me whether I've got questions to put to the witness subsequent to your earlier ruling, I'm not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think you must decide whether you want to put anything contrary to what he had said. I have dealt with the formal objection. I have enquired from him whether this amounts to a further ground for opposing the admissibility of the document. He hasn't given us any clear answer to that. His counsel has dealt, from our perspective, fully with the matter so there is nothing for us to rule on.

MR RAUTENBACH: I just want to - all I have to say in response to the statement is just that Legal Resources Centre does not consider itself by its actions to make themselves part of any criminal offence. That is basically all I would like to say in response. I'm not going to elaborate on that, I think the situation is clear in law. That's all I have to say, Mr Chairman. If you indicate to me that the ruling stands, then I will proceed in asking some questions about the document.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Rautenbach, I've just re-conferred with my colleagues, you can continue if you have any further questions. There is nothing that we are called upon to rule on at this stage.

MR RAUTENBACH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Bellingan, you just indicated that Renata must have thought, or Renata thought that it had something to do with Judy, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: That's what was initially conveyed to me by Renata.

MR RAUTENBACH: Is that because this document at some stage was faxed to Judy White?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR RAUTENBACH: Was this document faxed to Judy White at some stage?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman, I don't have any recall of that.

MR RAUTENBACH: Does your father have a fax facility where he normally spends his time?

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

MR RAUTENBACH: And then Mr Bellingan, just to get back to Friday, approximately 3 o'clock, are we, when you drew up this or when you wrote this document, that Friday refers to the day before the murder, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct, Mr Chairman.

MR RAUTENBACH: And in paragraph 3 thereof you refer to:

Does that refer back to the Friday?

MR BELLINGAN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR RAUTENBACH: And that conversation, was that a - I know what you're saying, you are talking, in your explanation you made it clear that this was another fictional document, so we'll call this a fictional document, discussion document - fictional document.

MR BELLINGAN: Correct, there was no statement.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now as far as the third paragraph thereof is concerned, 8H15, 9H15, and you explain 20H15 or 21H15, this conversation, was that a conversation that you intended to fabricate between yourself and Janine or between your father and Janine?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman, this would have referred to - I can't remember anymore, Mr Chairman, did phone her at approximately ... I don't know if that was, if my thought process at the time was intended to refer to a call I made or my father made, I can't remember anymore.

MR RAUTENBACH: Sorry, Mr Bellingan, you say your thought process ... you're not sure whether you it's your father or ...(intervention)

MR BELLINGAN: I can't remember what my thought process exactly was concerning that, paragraph 3.

MR RAUTENBACH: In any event you will agree with me that from your evidence before the Amnesty Committee there was in fact no telephone discussions that you were aware of at those times 20H15 and 21H15?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Mr Chairman, in fact at the time that I had this in mind there was a phone call from a Lorna Smith who had phoned Janine and I was aware of that already from, my colleagues had already mentioned to me that there was this phone call, of which Detective Steyn had a recording.

MR RAUTENBACH: Ja, but Mr Bellingan, if we look at this document ...(intervention)

MR BELLINGAN: There was certainly no phone call from my father or from myself.

MR RAUTENBACH: Or from yourself.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: So as far as this paragraph 3 is concerned, paragraph 3 was an attempt to fabricate more telephone conversations, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: The whole document is an ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, I'm talking about telephone conversations, Mr Bellingan, I'm talking about ...(intervention)

MR BELLINGAN: You're talking about paragraph 3?

MR RAUTENBACH: I'm talking about paragraph 3.

MR BELLINGAN: Including paragraph 3.

MR RAUTENBACH: I'm saying to you - listen to my question, paragraph 3 was another attempt to fabricate more telephone conversations, correct?

MR BELLINGAN: "More" meaning other than ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Well let me put it this way, this paragraph 3 was an attempt to fabricate telephone, a telephone conversation at round about those hours, correct? I'm sure we can accept that.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, it's ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Okay. Then you say in the second page thereof, paragraph 7, oh no, paragraph 6 ...(intervention)

MR BELLINGAN: In fact Mr Chairman, sorry just to get back to that. This couldn't have been myself, it couldn't have been intended to be myself who had phoned, it must have been intended by me at the time I wrote this down, to be regarding my father because if I remember correctly I had already made a warning statement and I already had said that there was no such contact on the Friday evening.

MR RAUTENBACH: Okay. Mr Bellingan, so we accept that that was an attempt that your father would say; I had a discussion with Janine, okay? - the Friday night before.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let's leave it there.

MR BELLINGAN: Ja.

MR RAUTENBACH: The following page over, I want you to have a look at the second page thereof, paragraph 6:

Now does that mean that there was a statement from your father that was with or in the possession of your attorney?

MR BELLINGAN: It seems Mr Rautenbach didn't understand my statement when he read it this morning, or when I read it myself now ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: I want you to explain it, Mr Bellingan, explain it.

MR BELLINGAN: No, I'm happy to explain it - I'm unhappy to explain, but I will as I have to. The paragraph 6 over here is simply; if this ever were used it would have been re-prompting my father to remind him that such a matter would be important, if there was a statement. In other words, the reader wouldn't know that there wasn't a statement but that he should remember that such a question would be put to him by Paul Leischer when he makes such a statement. Obviously my attorney would ask him; "You say you made a phone call, if you haven't got a telephone at your farm, then from where did you phone?" He would ask him that question quite obviously.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Bellingan, is that your explanation for that paragraph? What does the words mean in your statement to Paul:

What is that supposed to mean?

MR BELLINGAN: Because it's the kind of thing my father wouldn't do, he would say: "I made a phone call", he wouldn't say from where and then obviously anyone taking such a statement would want to know from where, where did you make this phone call from?

MR RAUTENBACH: Would it not be ...(intervention)

MR BELLINGAN: So he must be alerted to the fact that he's going to get asked that.

MR RAUTENBACH: If it's - you know if your father received this and if your evidence is correct, would his reaction not have been: "But what are you talking about, what statement?" Would that not be the reaction of any normal person if he knew that no such statement existed?

MR BELLINGAN: And I can say that he never ever testified to any of this, Mr Chairman.

MR RAUTENBACH: What you say is that there existed no statement at the time?

MR BELLINGAN: No statement existed at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you think that he would have to make a statement or that he might be approached to make a statement?

MR BELLINGAN: I thought he would be approached at some point in time, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And you thought that just in case he gets approached by the lawyer to make a statement, you're prompting him to remember which telephone he had used to make the call?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Bellingan, you say this formed part of your thought process at the time and this document we know now was intended for your father, did your father know that you were guilty at the time?

MR BELLINGAN: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: When was this document, when did you do this, can you date it?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I can't.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you give us an indication?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I can't, Mr Chairman, but it was most likely prior to the inquest I think. It was in any case after I'd made a warning statement, Mr Chairman.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Bellingan, at the time when the, on a Saturday, the Friday night/Saturday when you did your travelling, where was your father?

MR BELLINGAN: Sorry, where was my father when?

MR RAUTENBACH: On the night when you did your travelling from Pietermaritzburg or from Durban to Johannesburg and back to Pietermaritzburg which you described to us, where was your father at that stage?

MR BELLINGAN: My father was together with my aunt and uncle either, I think at Boston, at his farm at Boston, if I'm not mistaken, together with my mother, my uncle James and Gail Botha, they were all together at their farm.

MR RAUTENBACH: I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Rautenbach. Have any of the other parties got any questions arising from any of this? Alright, if not then I'm going to go back to Mr Hattingh. Have you got any re-examination in regard to this particular further evidence?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, would you just allow me one moment? Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Bellingan, about the suggestion of your father's involvement, could you just comment on that?

MR BELLINGAN: My father was never involved in any way, Mr Chairman, and there was no statement from him, either before this or after this. Not even for the Security Branch would he stand and lie under oath, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh.

ADV GCABASHE: Thanks Chair, just one question.

Mr Bellingan, paragraph 7 of that Exhibit V, I can't quite read the last word:

MR BELLINGAN: That is an abbreviation for Pevency.

ADV GCABASHE: Pevency.

MR BELLINGAN: Pevency is a farm for cerebral palsy adults, which my dad and mom were, I think my mom was arranging the catering and my dad was managing the farm itself at the time. So that is a separate farm from their own personal farm at Boston.

ADV GCABASHE: This is in the Midlands area?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct Mr Chairman, Pevency.

ADV GCABASHE: And that's where you'd normally find them during the day?

MR BELLINGAN: Correct, Mr Chairman.

ADV GCABASHE: And the Wednesday you referred to is the Wednesday before the Saturday that Janine was killed?

MR BELLINGAN: That would be the Wednesday, the 18th of September, Mr Chairman but once again there was no such phone call that I made.

ADV GCABASHE: It's all a fiction. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Bellingan, you are excused further ...(indistinct)

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, I would like to deal shortly with - we've made mention yesterday or the day before I think, about the investigating diary. I'm not putting the whole investigating diary before you. You will notice from the affidavit that was handed to you and the Committee Members that the affidavit confirms the correctness of the investigating diary. What I have here, and I've got several copies thereof for use of the other parties as well, is those parts of the investigating diary that I have made mention of during cross-examination and they are confirmed by the affidavit of Steyn. That's the first issue. If I may just make sure that this is handed out now.

Then secondly, there was this question regarding the inquest evidence and the suggestion was and the idea was that we would put together the parts of the inquest evidence which was referred to and which we thought to be relevant, instead of just putting the whole inquest record before you. We have compiled bundles of - this is what the bundle looks like and if you look at the whole inquest record you will notice that it's much more than this and we've also invited the other parties that should they want to add something they are welcome to do so, but from our side we'd then also like to hand in the relevant part of the inquest proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the extract from the investigation diary you say is linked to the affidavit of Mr Steyn?

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, that is the, what Steyn's affidavit says. You will recall that there was, that I specifically more than anyone else, referred to the investigating diary of Steyn. Now that is the portion that I referred to. In the affidavit of Steyn he says:

The only difficulty is that we didn't want to put to you the whole investigating diary because it will just burden you with paper.

CHAIRPERSON: No, we appreciate that. I just wanted to make sure that just for the purposes of identifying this document, just for our own purposes as well. Shall we call the extract from the diary T1? The affidavit is T, so shall we call that T1, just to make sure that it relates to the diary? The relevant extracts from the inquest, this would be W. That's all that you wanted to place before us, Mr Rautenbach?

MR RAUTENBACH: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr there anything else, Mr Hattingh or anyone of the other parties? Mr Chaskalson, anything further that you want to hand up or bring to our attention?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, only Exhibit L or Annexure L, that was the transfer or the property documentation that Mr Bellingan dealt with during his re-examination, we made copies of these documents. They were marked - sorry, Mr Chairman, Exhibit L was the letter for the trout hatchery, the document about that. So we've got copies of that document and the original and then the property details or property document were all marked M and we just followed the pages and marked them from page 1 to, it would appear, 24. There are various documents. We just made them all M and marked M1 to 24 and we've made copies of that as well.

Then Mr Chairman, with regard to the inquest record, I believe that part of the applicant's bundle from the outset was the inquest evidence of Mr Potter and Mr Steyn and I believe Mr Bastian's as well. Now on the same basis we are going to refer to those parts of the inquest record, but that is already before all of us, so we don't have to really add that as a new annexure.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh. Yes, W is just additional extracts which are not before us. Are you handing in and distributing Exhibits L and M? Are you ready or not yet? You can hand it in when you are ready.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, these documents have already been handed in, formally handed in, it's just a matter of distributing it to the various parties and my attorney tells me that he's not quite ready, but we will do so, it's not a problem, we're going to make it available immediately now. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, that's fine. Mr Chaskalson, you have run out of documents, have you?

MR CHASKALSON: I don't really have much to add, Mr Chairman. Just this morning Advocate Hattingh and I had a conversation with you in terms of how we might proceed tomorrow and I think possibly we could share that and your final opinion on the matter with all of the other parties here.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lengane and Mr Wagener, I am just enquiring for the record, you have nothing that you want to burden us with further?

MR WAGENER: No, Mr Chairman.

MR LENGANE: Nothing from our side, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, gentlemen. In that event, we have concluded all of the testimony in this hearing. As we had indicated we would want the parties to address us on their respective cases. We are going to adjourn until tomorrow morning for that purpose and we're going to start at 10 o'clock to leave a little bit more time in the morning for the parties to prepare if it's necessary.

Mr Hattingh, as Mr Chaskalson has indicated, has raised with us this morning his own understandable position in this matter in the sense that he would like to use every available opportunity to ensure that he does present to us every conceivable aspect of the applicant's case that might assist us in coming to a decision in this matter, and for that purpose we have indicated to him that we will allow him, after tomorrow's arguments, an opportunity to submit any further supplementary submissions which he might want to add to what he places before us tomorrow to us in writing and obviously we will allow all of the parties an opportunity to respond if they so wish.

So what we're going to ask is for Mr Chaskalson possibly to work out the logistics of that arrangement, possibly just get an indication from Mr Hattingh what sort of period he would, shortest possible period I must emphasise because you know unfortunately this Panel, as the rest of our colleagues, are working on a very demanding schedule that takes us to hearings consecutively for weeks and weeks on end, so it is in the interest of everybody that we get down to making a decision in matters that we hear as quickly as we possible can, within reasonable limits. So bearing that in mind, would you then arrange logistics, Mr Chaskalson, which will give Mr Hattingh a little bit of extra time after tomorrow to consider whether he wants to submit any further written supplementary argument to us and which will allow all of the parties to consider that and to decide whether they want to respond, to be then given a opportunity to do so?

MR CHASKALSON: We will discuss that and hopefully provide you with a set of dates which you can accept or amend as you see fit.

CHAIRPERSON: We would appreciate that very much. We would like to start at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning with the argument, so can I call upon the parties to make sure that we are able to honour that obligation. We will then adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.