Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-04-15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Then we'll number it Number 1.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

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

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

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

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

MR CORNELIUS: As the Chairman pleases.

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

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

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	Okay then Mr Bellingan, Exhibit 1 is the tape recording of your discussions with Mr Kjellberg on the 7th of March 1997.  Your transcript which you made to the best of your ability is then a document which was also made available to all concerned as well as the Committee, and this document with permission of the Committee, will then be handed in as exhibit, or Annexure O.  
	Now dealing with Exhibit O, your transcript of your meeting with Mr Kjellberg, could you just briefly refer to this transcript and show this Committee what you would like to show with regard to this, or indicate, or draw the attention of the Committee with regard to your discussion with Mr Kjellberg on that date.

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

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

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, Advocate Hattingh, carry on.

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: On page 3 where it starts at the counter 040, I say
"In the preparation of my amnesty application ..."
... then I talk further about certain documentation that I've been trying to get hold of.  And then towards the bottom I say:
"I sent in a skeleton application, then remember we were going to fill it in with Kobus step by step by step."
That also never happened.

MR HATTINGH: Who was Kobus?

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: Kobus was the second attorney that the TRC had arranged for me at that stage via, I think it was Legal Aid.  It was Legal Aid.  Then I say
"You know Kobus has not been back here, we've never really progressed further."
Jan says:
"No"
His voice intonation there meaning in agreement as in we've never progressed further.
"On that"
I say.

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