Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-11-19

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: You see, I am not really, really sure where he pointed the gun, but that, at that stage that is when the first shot went off.

MR BOOYENS: But they were face to face, not so, virtually, on what you demonstrated?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: They were, they looked like they were face to face, but the moment he started to pull him, the man was no more face to face with him, he was passing him, going to the ground.

MR BOOYENS: Well, you saw when the shot was fired you told us?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: That is right.

MR BOOYENS: So, he was pulling and I suggest to you what you demonstrated as he pulled the man and he was still pulling it past in front of him and he had the gun in his right hand, that would have meant he would have shot him from the front.  Is that right?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: That is right.

MR BOOYENS: Well, Mr Bellingan is being criticised, because his explanation does not fit in with the post mortem, but neither does yours.  What do you say about that?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: Like I said, I did not see where he shot him for the first shot or even the second shot.

MR BOOYENS: No, both shots, if I understand the post mortem are above the ear and in the occipital region, in other words towards the, behind the ear, the back of the head.  Now, on your demonstration that would have been an extremely awkward position for Mr Bellingan to shoot him in, on the first shot.

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: I do not, like I say, I did not see where he pointed his gun the first shot when he shot him.

MR BOOYENS: But you told us you saw when he ... (intervention).

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: I saw him pulling the man and shooting the man, but I did not see the direction of his firearm in the body of the man.

MR BOOYENS: So, your demonstration of just now where you had the gun pointed at the front of his, upper part of his body was not correct?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: It looked like, the demonstration I was doing, when it happened that day it looked like that.

MR BOOYENS: Well, then, if it looked like that, then it must have happened like that or are you, perhaps, saying that maybe my observations are not accurate?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: Not that way, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: Well, then, if it looked like that, then you are telling us what you saw?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: Yes, that is what I saw.

MR BOOYENS: And what you saw is Bellingan pulling him towards him and, as you indicated in your demonstration, with the firearm towards the front upper part of his body.  Is that correct?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: That is what I demonstrated right now, Sir, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And that is when the shot went off?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: It is at that point when the shot went off.

MR BOOYENS: Right, then the bullet must have hit him in the front upper part of the body.  As I understand the post mortem, there is no entry wound in the front upper part of the body, the wounds are in the head.

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: I cannot explain that one, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: Yes.  You see, Mr Mbelo, I think, in all fairness to you, you have been trying to explain things and I can understand why, because you do not want to be accused of not making a full disclosure, because you realise it is important, not so?  Is that correct?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: That is not ... (intervention).

MR BOOYENS: You must tell the full story, is that right?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: That is not correct, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: No, in terms to get amnesty, you must tell the full story.  Is that correct?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: That is a requirement of ... (intervention).

MR BOOYENS: Yes.

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: ... what I have heard from my lawyer, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: And ... (intervention).

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: The full story, the full of what happened.

MR BOOYENS: What I want to suggest to you, Mr Mbelo, is that in the circumstances there, and I am not saying that you are lying deliberately, but you are reconstructing what you think what happened there.  Things happened so fast there, in fact, different things might have happened.  Things might have happened slightly different and you might think, from the angle at you, which you were watching, that Bellingan was pulling the man out, not so?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: It might be so, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: That is right.  In fact, standing at the back of your, of the Kombi and with the Kombi where the man came from, standing at a slight angle, you would not, could not have had a 100% clear view of what happened between Mr Bellingan and the deceased, not so?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: But, at first I had 100% view of him, before I moved from that position to the man I shot.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, we will deal with that later, but the point is, what I am suggesting to you, that in that high stress situation, it is quite conceivable that what you saw was a man getting out of the vehicle quite quickly, not being pulled by Bellingan, and that Bellingan shot him in those circumstances.  In other words, that the pulling or the dragging never took place.  Is it possible that that is what happened?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: It may be possible.

MR BOOYENS: And it may also be possible, then, that this man lifted his hand with something in it, which you did not see, because, remember, Mr Mbelo, this was a high stress situation, not so?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: It is so.

MR BOOYENS: So, in fact, are you really saying to His Lordship, that it is, it will be dangerous to rely on what you said at the 29 about a man being shot inside the vehicle or being dragged out of the vehicle, that really you are not quite certain what the circumstances were when Bellingan shot him?  He might have shot him even in the circumstances that he described in his evidence.  Is that correct?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: Can say is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now, dealing with the statement that you said Mr Bellingan changed for you.  Mr Bellingan, the statement you made, Mr Bellingan, as you heard, said that he rewrote the statement and he got you to sign it.  That is, indeed, correct.

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You trusted Mr Bellingan at that stage?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: Yip, we were colleagues.

MR BOOYENS: Trusted him enough not to read the statement before you signed it?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: Yip.

MR BOOYENS: So, you did not read the statement before you signed it?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: I read it.

MR BOOYENS: Were you satisfied with it?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: I was.

MR BOOYENS: Was ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Were or were not?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: I was.

MR BOOYENS: You did not query anything in it?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: No.

MR BOOYENS: It was written in better, what was the language made in, Afrikaans or English, I cannot remember?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: It was in Afrikaans.

MR BOOYENS: It was written in better Afrikaans than yours?
Is that correct?  Okay, let us not quarrel about that one.  Maybe in Mr Bellingan's view it was written in better Afrikaans, maybe in your view it was written in worse Afrikaans, but be that as it may, Mr Bellingan said that what he really did is he just, he did not change the gist of the statement, he changed it linguistically around and maybe a few things so that they made better sense, because he was an experienced policeman as far as that is concerned.  Now, you said, you told me already that you were satisfied with the statement, so would you agree with what, what Mr Bellingan told us there?

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: Yes, at that time I had to agree with what he wrote there, because it was for the purpose of the Weaver Trial ... (intervention).

MR BOOYENS: Yes.

TIKAPELA JOHANNES MBELO: ... at that time.

MR BOOYENS: Well, and you were not going to disclose this fact that you shot this man down, because that was going to mean trouble to you, not so?