Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-04-15

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: On page 2 of the affidavit ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Which one?

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: It's the one of Mr Oosthuizen, Mr Chairman, marked Annexure K.  Mr Oosthuizen deals in paragraph 3.1 on page 2, with the question as to whether Janine worked for the Security Branch.  There's two comments that I can make about that, and the first on is that there was a long period when I was at Stratcom, when Mr Oosthuizen wasn't working with me, he was still in Johannesburg and I worked with Brigadier McIntyre etc., etc., and then certainly Janine worked for us on the basis that I've explained to the Committee, on the contract basis.
	When Janine initially started to work, as I've explained on peripheral basis for the Security Branch in Johannesburg, after I had met her, it could well be that Mr Oosthuizen doesn't remember that or that it may not specifically have been brought to his attention, as he says here.  
	And then I can just add there, Mr Chairman, that I've recalled that I gave a discussion in February about how one goes about the financing of these types of things.  
	And with respect to my media operation, my staff at the time will be able to confirm that for the media operation opposite Khotso House, I had a monthly standing advance for that operation and the stringers and the people associated with it that were paid would be paid and then the money basically claimed back by a claim form, not always via the usual system of motivations etc., etc.  
	So I had fairly much a free hand as far as that is concerned, Mr Chairman.  It may well be that Janine was paid out of that system.  People on my staff at the time like Warrant Officer Beyers and Paul Erasmus and so on will be able to confirm that.
	As far as paragraph 3.2 is concerned, it could well be that Mr Oosthuizen is right when he says:
"Ek dra geen kennis van die beweerde lys nie, of enige operasies wat in daardie verband geloots was deur teenspionasie nie."
It was in fact something I was doing, not counter-espionage, Mr Chairman.  The Committee must also remember that it wasn't only Mr Oosthuizen that I was speaking to, I had a fairly free hand in respect of my duties, Mr Chairman.  And I also had and was involved with some of the most highly skilled people in the country with these types of things.  So there were times when it just frankly wouldn't have been necessary to talk to Mr Oosthuizen about this type of thing.  
	In fact, this past Sunday when I was going through some documentation I'd just received I found some document which prompted my memory as far as something else that Mr Oosthuizen also wouldn't have knowledge of, and that is how names that I arranged via head office and the regions of people that we were to test on mass, under the guise of what is called here scientific investigation, whereas in actual fact I was posing 140 ideological and personality questions to these people.
	If one looks at these names over here there is only one conclusion that one could reach, some of the names that we slipped in, if one just looks at - well I'm sure that if the TRC looked at them they would agree with me that these are names that have been cropping up quite regularly in terms of what I would then have called possible extremists.  And there were also people on this list who were suspected of being working for the ANC at the time as well.  So Mr Oosthuizen would know nothing about this, but certainly some other people would.  And it's against the background of me drawing up a list and getting involved with these types of things that I mention this as well.
	So as for paragraph 3.2, it could well be that Mr Oosthuizen doesn't know about that.  In fact I'm quite sure he didn't know about the list.  I already testified to the fact that I didn't want anyone to know about the list.
	In terms of paragraph 3.3, I don't know if this is some sort of effort to get around this allegation that was made about Renata and I having an affair or being at Port Edward or whatever, prior to Janine's death, which is not, there's no basis at all for that, certainly not rumours around the office.  And I would have known if there were such rumours, Mr Chairman, I never heard any such rumours around the office.  Certainly - prior to the murder there were most definitely no such rumours whatsoever, Mr Chairman.  After the murder the rumours were to the extent that it was I who had killed Janine and not with anything at all to do with an affair with anybody else.  So I'm not happy at all with paragraph 3.3.

MR HATTINGH: That covers Mr Oosthuizen's affidavit.  If you could turn to the affidavit of Mr Erasmus, Annexure J, ...(intervention)

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: May I just on paragraph 3.3 there, Mr Chairman, just bring to the Commission's attention, the Committee's attention the statement submitted by my wife, where she also denies this thing about the affair.  I think it has been handed in.

MR HATTINGH: Turning to Exhibit J ...(intervention)

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, before we get to that affidavit, may I interject here.  We were referred to a list of names of 140-odd names, I'm not sure what the real suggestion was concerning my client, Brigadier Oosthuizen.  May I ask you that I can see this list.  It didn't seem relevant at all to me and I'm not sure what the point was that Mr Bellingan was trying to make.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it appears as if he was trying to illustrate his point that Mr Oosthuizen wouldn't have been aware of all his, Bellingan's activities.  But there can't be, I don't see what difficulty there would be.  Do you want to have a look at the list?  Alright, it is being handed to you.
	Advocate Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  I just want to say that we have no problem with making this list available.  We did not consider it so relevant as to actually make it an exhibit or annexure, but in any event it is available to anyone who would like to have a look at the list.  We would like to turn to the next exhibit, the statement from Mr Erasmus, and I would like the applicant to just indicate whether he has any comments in regard to this statement.  Perhaps firstly tell us what is the date of this new statement.

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, it's dated 24th of March 1999.

MR HATTINGH: Have you got any comments with regard to this statement?

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: General Erasmus is confirming, as I understand it, the answers that he gave in writing to his attorney on a previous occasion.  If I remember correctly, the answers were some denials and some not rememberings.  And if General Erasmus says he doesn't remember, then so be it, then he doesn't remember, Mr Chairman.  But as for any suggestion that I've given wrong information to the Committee, that is not so.  The information I've given to the Committee is accurate.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you.  I would then like to turn to Mr Steyn, the investigating officer involved in the murder case of Janine, have you had the opportunity to discuss with Mr Steyn subsequent to the criminal trial, about any problems that he experienced with regard to his investigation into the murder case?

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: During the investigation Mr Steyn mentioned problems that he was experiencing, Mr Chairman.  I haven't seen Mr Steyn subsequent to the murder trial, Mr Chairman, but certainly during the investigations he approached me and said that he would appreciate it very much if, words to the effect that he understands about the pressure etc., etc., but if we could perhaps leave his family out of it as far as the threats were concerned.  I conveyed to him then that I had nothing to do with it, in the sense that it was not I who was causing the particular actions that he was complaining about to me and also through the media at that stage.  There were a lot of reports about the harassment etc., etc.  It was not I who was doing that, Mr Chairman, and I told Mr Steyn that.