Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-04-15

MR HATTINGH: Now on previous occasions when you handed the original notes to people from the TRC, whoever they may have been at the time, what happened to those notes? - the original notes.

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: They would be returned to me, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: What happened to this original note, the discussion document, the original hand-written note, after you had given it either to Mr Kjellberg or anyone else from the TRC?

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: It appears that at least part of it I got back.  At least part of it was returned to me by the TRC, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know when or under what circumstances?

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: No, I can't remember, Mr Chairman.  This thing fizzled, it kind of died a natural death, this discussion document of mine, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Then if we turn to Exhibit B, that is a report from Mr Kjellberg - I've marked mine from page 1 to 8, this report is dated the 15th of January 1997.

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: I don't doubt that is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Good.  Now I would first refer you to page 2 and the paragraph in the middle of that page under the heading
"Contacts with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission"
Reference is made to a number of meetings which had been held with representatives from the TRC, what would that have been?

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: I agree with that, Mr Chairman, there were a number of meetings, mostly requests that the TRC had, apropos information that they believed I had.

MR HATTINGH: And that the first meeting was held on the 1st of August 1996, do you agree to that?

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: It could very well be, I don't have any reason to doubt it, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: And that seven meetings were held during the course of the period from 1st of August 1996 until such time as this report was prepared on the 15th of January 1997?

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: It could be true, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: And the last sentence in that paragraph says
"On the various issued, Mr Bellingan has been asked to write a summary of his knowledge or to hand over documentation that he had access to, which may be relevant to the particular issue under discussion."

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Is that correct?

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And it also states that
"A list described in the documents produced by Mr Bellingan is also included to this document."

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: Correct.
MR HATTINGH
"Copies of these documents have been forwarded to the National Unit in Cape Town."

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: Correct, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Now apart from the reference to an amnesty application, on page 4, the top half of this page, and having due regard to the list of documents following on pages 5, 6, 7 and 8, is there any reference to your discussion document being handed in as your amnesty application or annexure to the amnesty application?

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: Not at all in Mr Kjellberg's notes here, in Exhibit B, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: On page 4, the middle of the page, the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph it's stated
"The further details could be read in the amnesty application."
Just to clarify this particular issue, it's not quite clear to me whether this is something which Mr Kjellberg stated as being that he is in possession of this document and the reader of this report could go to the application and read the balance of the information, or whether you told Mr Kjellberg that he could read the balance of the information in the application.

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: It's not clear to the reader of the document, Mr Chairman, but it may be that there was a misunderstanding.

MR HATTINGH: What was the position?

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: From my side I would say yes, the amnesty application is to come, because this is January so the further details will be read in the amnesty, will be read, could be read in the amnesty application which, obviously that would refer then to the annexure to the amnesty application which was still to come.  If Mr Kjellberg had then gotten hold of this other document and somehow seen that at this point in time as the annexure, then there's a huge misunderstanding, or there was for him anyway.

MR HATTINGH: Just for clarity, on this page 4 ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, I'm sorry to interrupt, but when the re-examination started that was one of my concerns, we've just had an example of that.  There's now - we have the witness analysing the report by Mr Kjellberg and then venture an argument to you as to what it means and what it doesn't mean and this is the type of thing that I have tried to forewarn my learned friend about.  I just want to - I'm not objecting to it, I'm just saying at this stage that this is the type of thing, please guard against the witness giving argument to the Committee about what a document means and what the evidence means and what the witness means.  It's clearly the type of situation one envisages when the parties finally argue as to what was meant by certain documents.  As it pleases you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Rautenbach.  I think it's just a position that is being placed on record, there is no formal objection.  But I assume, as I had accepted in the beginning, that you alert to this sort of thing.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, the idea was not to commence argument at this stage.  If it appeared to be the position, that was not my intention.
	Mr Bellingan, what I want to gain from you at this stage is merely the facts, no argument as such.  I just want you to read on page 4, from the top until the next heading concerning Mr Bellingan's, of Mrs Bellingan's letter to the TRC.  Just read through the four paragraphs, yourself, on your own, just read through it.  Now I don't want to lead you, but I wanted to know from you - now perhaps I went too quickly over this, the remark, the last sentence in paragraph 2:
"The further details could be read in the amnesty application"
In the context of this section of the report from Mr Kjellberg, could you just explain that to us?

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: It's obvious then that there was some discussion on the discussion document.  If one just goes two sentences before that, Mr Chairman, where it says
"He then suggested that they should ..."
etc., etc., etc.  Then in the context of that there must have been some discussion.  And then what my advocate's asking:
"The further details could be read in the amnesty application"
That obviously refers to a formal amnesty application, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it seems to refer to an existing entity.  This report seems to be just a sort of a, an indication of the thrust of the explanation of the incident, which appears in an existing entity, which this reporter refers to.  So there appears to have been some document in existence at that time when this was prepared, which would have contained the full particulars of this incident which the report simply summarises some aspects about.

MICHAEL BELLINGAN: Or alternatively, Mr Chairman, the skeleton application and then discussions on that, perhaps based on the discussion document pending the filling in of an amnesty application.  But I see your point, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in any event ...

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	Mr Bellingan, bear in mind that we're at this stage dealing with the status of this document and not the existence of this document.  If we could turn to the letter from the TRC, which was shown to you yesterday by Mr Chaskalson, the letter dated the 1st August 1997, which letter has not yet been handed in but which will be then marked Annexure N.  With regard to the status of this discussion document, whether it was hand-written or subsequently typed, what are your comments with regard to Annexure N then, this letter from the TRC, dated 1st August '97?