Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-04-15

CHAIRPERSON: For the record it is Thursday, 15 April 1999.  It is the continuation of the amnesty application of Mr Michael Bellingan.  We apologise for the fact that we are starting slightly later than usual, but that is due to difficulties which are not of the making of the applicant, in arranging for Advocate Hattingh to consult with the applicant as he was authorised to do at the end of the day yesterday.
	Mr Hattingh, I assume that you have no managed to get through?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, thank you for the indulgence and the time.  We are ready to proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Then, Mr Bellingan, I remind you that you are still under oath.

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, any re-examination?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, I just want to at this stage, just before my learned friend starts with his cross-examination, put the following on record.  We've been handed a document, a document containing notes made by Mr Bellingan.  We've been told that this note will be used during the re-examination of Mr Bellingan.  At this stage we do not want to merely object against the note, we just would like to place two concerns on record.  The first concern is, and I must immediately point out that I haven't been able to read through the document, I could, well some portions of it I could read, others I just couldn't make out what is stated here so I don't really know what exactly is stated in some of these paragraphs.  But the two concerns that we have are the following:  The first one is, from a reading of the bits that I can make out there seems to be contained legal argument.  If, and I think I would just like to emphasise this and ask my learned friend to take it into account, that he should stay away from legal argument as far as possible.  I just think if we spends, if Mr Bellingan especially, spends too much time on legal argument, whether it's legal argument or whether it's argument on how, on the record, on the evidence as to what evidence should be accepted or how evidence should be interpreted, that that's a matter for argument and that we shouldn't waste time on that.  I just would place that concern on record and that everyone should be alive to that issue.
	The second concern that we have is that we all know that there's always a temptation for lawyers in re-examination to lead a witness, to put leading questions to a witness.  Insofar as the contents of this document may actually be another form of putting a leading question to Mr Bellingan, that he actually reads what is suggested in his own note, that should also be taken into account.  I would also ask my learned friend to be careful as far as that is concerned.  It is a bit unusual to put a document like this before a witness, we're not going to object against it in its entirety, but we would like you to take these considerations into account.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, Mr Rautenbach.  Are there any other comments on the note which has been furnished to us as well and which the Panel hasn't really read, and which we accepted was an aide memoir really, in a sense, but obviously the concerns that Mr Rautenbach raised are genuine concerns and I assume that Advocate Hattingh, you would be alive to those things.  I mean we don't want to hear legal argument and of course I don't need to talk to you about leading questions.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I've taken note, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.  Under those circumstances, would you then proceed with the re-examination.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	Mr Bellingan, you've been on the witness stand now for the better part of six days already during the course of this hearing and with due regard to my own position and my belated entry into this matter there are a few things that I would like to be clarified and to be put into perspective, not only for my own purpose, which is not quite so relevant, but for the purposes of this Committee.  
	Now to start out yesterday before the lunch break, Mr Chaskalson was in the process of dealing with the issue of financial gain, mostly with regard to the murder incident.  This line of questioning was not pursued after lunch and the whole issue was somewhat left in the air.  Now with regard to the murder itself, just dealing with the murder, not with the NUMSA matter, and just to clarify the issue, at the time of the incident itself, did financial gain play any role in your planning and/or the execution of the murder?

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: Not at all, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Subsequent to the murder there were certain financial benefits accruing to you and/or your children.  Just to clarify that issue, why did you allow this financial benefit to accrue to the family as a unit?

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: Mr Chairman, I didn't really have a choice because it would have looked extremely funny if I didn't accept these or allow these transactions to take place then, it would have looked extremely strange.  It was just sort of incidental things that happened afterwards, I had no knowledge of them prior to that at all.

MR HATTINGH: To which particular actions do you refer when you say
"It would have looked funny"

MR HATTINGH: I'm sorry, Mr Chairman, we have a problem with these earphones.
CHAIRPERSON DISCUSSES PROBLEMS WITH HEADSETS

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, we'll try again and see if there's a problem.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	Mr Bellingan, the question was to which actions do you refer when you say:
"It would have looked funny"
... had you not pursued those actions.

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: The fact that these pension benefits - the people at the municipality were writing letters etc., etc., Mr Chairman, so it would have looked strange if I didn't then contact them and sort out what needed to be sorted out.  And the same with the policies, any of these policies and pensions and these things.

MR HATTINGH: Now with regard to the benefits flowing from those pension funds or the policies, what happened to those funds, how were they channelled?

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: To the best of my ability and circumstances that money will all be used for my children, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: There is however, the issue of the amount of money that you gave the instruction for to be released while you were in New Zealand and which then ultimately was paid out to your attorney prior to the bail application, it would appear.  What's happened to that money?

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: Correct, Mr Chairman, I never got any back from the attorney, so I presume he used it all.

CHAIRPERSON: Hasn't he accounted to you?

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: I don't think so, Mr Chairman.  He may have sent an account to my wife, but I haven't seen one.  I trust him, I don't think he's done anything funny with it, but I've just never seen an account.  And for example, he paid the bail and I think he must have collected the money back etc., etc.,  I don't know, I haven't dealt with ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Which attorney is this?

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: It's Mr Leisher(?)

CHAIRPERSON: Is it a local attorney?

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.  He may very well have - I know my wife has been in touch with him, he may very well have done that with her, but I don't know about that.  I presume the money has been used up on legal matters.

CHAIRPERSON: Because if I understand the position correctly, that money is strictly speaking the money of your children and that money hasn't reached your children at all, it seems to me now.