Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-11-19

MR BOOYENS: I say chances are that you would have been charged for murder, because, let us fact it, what you did was not a self defence situation or something like that, I am talking about the man that you shot.  Is that correct?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: It is correct.  I told Sergeant Bellingan at that time that this guy wanted to give himself over and one of those Sergeants, Riot Squad, told me to shoot him.

MR BOOYENS: You never made, did you ever make any mention of it, that you told Sergeant Bellingan this in either your application?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: No, I did not mention it in my applications.

MR BOOYENS: Why not?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: It slipped my mind when I was busy drafting the application.

MR BOOYENS: Because you see, Sergeant Bellingan said, and I would understand if you did not, because you knew you did something wrong, that you did not mention this factor to him.  Is it possible that you are mistaken about the fact that you mentioned it to him?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: I am not mistaken, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: Did you make any other mistakes in your application or at the time when you gave evidence in terms of Section 29?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: No, Sir.  What I said was what was in my heart.

MR BOOYENS: You remember, you know what I talk about if I talk about the Section 29 application?  That is when you were questioned by Mr Koisan and Mr Potgieter and I do not know who else.

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: I am aware of that one, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: Was your intention to speak the truth there?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: It was my intention, like it is even today.

MR BOOYENS: So, you told no deliberate lies and misled nobody deliberately?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: I tell nobody lies and I am not doing what you say I am trying to do, Sir.  I am straight forward and I want to keep it that way.

MR BOOYENS: You gave your evidence at that hearing in what language?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: I gave that hearing in Setswana.

MR BOOYENS: And was it translated into English?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: Yes, Mr Chairman, it was translated into English.

MR BOOYENS: Were you satisfied with the translation?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: If there were wrong translations you would have objected and said, well, that is not ...

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: I  would have objected, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: Would you page, please turn to page 334 of the record.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go onto that, how was it translated?  As it is being today or was there an interpreter speaking loudly that everybody could hear?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: There was an interpreter, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: There is a question asked of you by Mr Koisan,
"Balletjie shot him inside the vehicle."
and your answer,
"Yes, he shot him right inside the car.  I think there were two or maybe there was one, I am not sure."
You said that?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: This one which is right here, which is written here, I talked about men, but never said two corpses.

MR BOOYENS: Answer the question.

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: I might have said this one, yes, Sir.  They must have misinterpreted me when they interpreted this words which are written on this paper.

MR BOOYENS: So, are, well, Koisan asked you the question, did Balletjies shoot him in the vehicle?  You did not say, just say, yes or no, but you gave a full answer according to this.  Are you now saying that that is a misinterpretation?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: No.

MR BOOYENS: Well, what are you saying?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: What I am saying, Sir, Mr Chairman, is I answer to the question which Mr Koisan asked me about the man who was shot by the vehicle.

MR BOOYENS: The question was - leave that alone - the question was,
"Balletjies shot him inside the vehicle.  Yes he shot him right inside the car."
So, it is not a case of misunderstanding the question, it is a very clear answer.  Why did you say that?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: Sir, I was confused when I made this 29 application of mine.  So, by, at my affidavit I was more relaxed.

MR BOOYENS: So, you do admit that there you made certain mistakes under oath?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: I, yes, I see I made certain mistakes, yes, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: Because just the previous sentence,
"Another persons corpse was found inside the Kombi and there was, and there another one was shot by Balletjies."
You have read that, you have already referred to that answer.  You have said that as well.

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: Mr Chairman, I do not think I have signed this Section 29 hearing of mine.

MR BOOYENS: Please, Mr Mbelo, let us not try and get clever.  This is an official record of official proceedings where it is recorded that you have taken the oath.  It is not necessary for you to sign it.  It is like court proceedings.  So, please, let us not get clever, just answer the question.

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: Repeat your question again.

MR BOOYENS: Explain your answer, the, just the previous answer,
"Yes, there were those who were shot inside those Kombi.  Another persons corpse was found inside the Kombi there.  Another was shot by Balletjies."
What did (...indistinct).

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: I was confused here, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: So, another confusion.  Why were you confused?  I do not think you were treated too, with too much hostility by these people, from what I can read.

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: I was not treated by hostility by the people who asked me, but I was confused.

MR BOOYENS: I can show you further instances where you actually repeated this allegation that Bellingan shot the one man inside the Kombi.  At page 346, Mr Potgieter, right at the bottom of the page.
"That is where the person was shot inside the vehicle.

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: That is true."
So, it is not only an instance of being confused.  Once the, of repeating a patently untrue statement.  Why?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: Sir, I made a mistake that one.  It could have been a big mistake which I made there, but after visiting the scene with Mr Williams, when we were doing the affidavit, I recalled everything on the scene.

MR BOOYENS: So, are you really saying that before you visited the scene you were not certain as to what happened there.  It is only once you visited the scene that you recalled exactly what happened?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: Yes, about the man in the Kombi or next to the Kombi.

MR BOOYENS: So, prior to that, in other words, you were uncertain as to whether the man was shot inside the Kombi, next to the Kombi or where.  It is only once you visited the scene that this came back to you?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: That is positive.

MR BOOYENS: Well, so, I just want to make sure.  So, an incident like this, you were prepared to testify under oath about something that you could not remember and painting a very bad picture about Mr Bellingan, knowing full well that you could not remember it at the time of the Section 29 hearing?  Why, Mr Mbelo?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: I have already admitted my mistake which I did that time and I was confused.

MR BOOYENS: No, but you have now also told us that by, at the time of the 29 you could not remember.  Why not just say to them when they asked you about that, look, I cannot remember where Bellingan shot the man.  Now you go and paint the worst possible picture of him.  Why did you do that?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: Sir, it is like I said.  I do not know why I did it, but it happened.

MR BOOYENS: At the stage when gave your evidence in summons of Section 29 did you know Mr Bellingan was applying for amnesty?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: I did not know.