Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-11-20

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: I am saying to this Commission the weapon that is seen in the video was actually placed on Mr Mlifie after his death.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Mr Mbelo.  Can you recall, I know it took a long, it took place a long ago, can you recall whether any other weapons were placed besides the bodies of any of the other victims on that day?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: I do not remember seeing any other bodies being placed, with weapons being placed next to them, but as we went around we realised that there were weapons next to these people as it appeared on the photos and the video.

ADV MOTATA: Mr Mbelo, in respect of Mlifie, did you actually see the weapon placed on his abdomen?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: Your Honour, when this weapon was placed on his body, I did not see.  Can I go on?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV MOTATA: Yes.

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: Because when I saw the photographs I was very surprised to see this on his abdomen when I actually knew that it was actually removed from him originally.

MS PATEL: Did you bring this to anyones attention when you noticed that there was a firearm on the body that was not there before?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: No, I never brought this to anyones attention.

MS PATEL: Would you care to explain why not, Mr Mbelo?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: Your Honour, the photographs were produced during the Weaver Trial and we had already given our statements regarding this matter.

MS PATEL: Were the photographs shown to you at the Weaver Trial?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: Yes, we were shown the photos and we were asked to confirm as to these other men who were shot on that day.

MS PATEL: Why did you then not, at that stage, inform the court or your superior that that photograph is not a true reflection of what, in fact, had taken place on that day?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: You, Chairperson, as I have previously mentioned that the evidence given in the Weaver Trial was not true and thus I did not point out that this man was not actually lying in the original position and the weapon was not there initially.

MS PATEL: Are you now also saying to us that the body had been moved from the position that it was in when he was shot and killed?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: The body was not removed from where it was, but there was nothing on his body when he died.  I am talking  about the firearm placed during the photo session.  When I left him there was no firearm on his body.

ADV MOTATA: Mr Mbelo, you said you first shot Mlifie and subsequently somebody said something nasty and he shot him in the stomach.  Was he lying in the same position as we see him on the photograph with the weapon on his stomach?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: Yes, it is so, Sir.

MS PATEL: So, then the position that you refer to is the positioning of the weapon, not of the body?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: Your Honour, I am talking about the firearm, not the bodies position.

MS PATEL: Are you then also saying, Mr Mbelo, that the reason you did not bring this to anyones attention was because you knew that the entire operation was a sham, that is had been planned the way it is being brought out here today and that it did not really make a difference at the end of the day whether the weapon was planted there or not or for you to bring it to anyones attention, because you, together with the rest of the people who were involved in the operation, had already, by agreement, whether tacitly or not, had agreed that these men were going to be ambushed and killed?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: Yes, it is so.

MS PATEL: There is just one last point then, Mr Mbelo, and, once again, my colleague, Mr Williams, Brent Williams, has dealt with this, but perhaps you can to this Committee why exactly you are applying for amnesty?  What is your main motivation?  I am motivated by the fact that I made a mistake, I shot an unarmed person and I did this under orders and also I was serving the Government and trying to maintain the Government of the day as well in power, to keep it in power.

MS PATEL: What are your views now on the Government?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: The present Government, I feel very ashamed as to the role I played in delaying the efforts of the liberation fighters to bring the liberation that we have today.

MS PATEL: How does one know that you are sincere, Mr Mbelo, that you are not here just to get amnesty so that you will not be charged for the crime, the heinous crime that you have committed?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: I am saying this from the depth of my heart, your Honour.

ADV MOTATA: Mr Mbelo, when you were employed by the South African Police, what was the understanding of your job, to prevent crime or to support the previous Government, what was your impression then?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: When I joined the police force, the aim was to fight crime.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions for this witness.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Have you re-examination or ...

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, with your permission, just a few questions I would like to clear up with the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Well (...indistinct) anyway, would you prefer that we adjourn till then and you can (...indistinct) your questions.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, I do not think I will be longer than five to seven minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I am going to adjourn till 02H15 anyway, (...indistinct) finish in seven minutes.

MS PATEL: Mr Chair, ...

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct) you will not prevent the adjournment.

MS PATEL: Mr Chairperson, perhaps before you, it is me, sorry, perhaps, before you make that decision, may I bring to your attention that the witness has now acquired legal representation, I have been asked to place on record that his council is, unfortunately, involved in a trial, he is not able to come here today.  His request, however, is that the matter then be postponed to a time where we can mutually arrange a date.

CHAIRPERSON: We now have a request from the advocate who is going to, I understand he is, the potential witness has been given legal aid and an advocate has been appointed and can we then place on record that that advocate has indicated that he is not available to appear here at the present time, but would request an adjournment of the proceedings to a date to be arranged to enable him to take proper instructions from his client and, I imagine, to familiarise himself with the evidence that has been led.  Is that the position.

MS PATEL: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems to me a perfectly reasonable request in the circumstances.  I do not know if any of the other legal practitioners would like to comment on it, but if we all know who the potential witness is and his evidence would, I imagine, take quite a long time and would require a, if it is done properly, a thorough research into the previous history.  So, very well then, we will continue and try to finish these proceedings now.
	How many minutes did you say, because I was told that the last questioner was going to take five minutes?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, I can tell you I will be no longer than five minutes.  May I proceed, Mr Chairman.  Thank you.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR P WILLIAMS

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, in the process I have just lost a page.  I have been ...
	Mr Mbelo, I cannot find the page now, but my learned colleague, Mr Williams, referred you to a page with your testimony at the Section 29 hearings where you allegedly mentioned that the fact why you preferred Vlakplaas is because you use to have regular braais and parties.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 375.

UNKNOWN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Is that why you preferred to be based at Vlakplaas rather than at an ordinary police station?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: No, that is not the reason.

UNKNOWN: Can you tell the Committee what is the reason why you were, why you preferred Vlakplaas?