CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, give us your full names please.
SCHALK JAN VISSER: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Visser, your application is in the bundle from page 21 to 23, it is the formal application. The aspect about which it is here, the incident, is from page 24 to 25 and then the political motivation is from page 26 to 33, is that correct?
MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: You fully gave all your details in your application with regard to your background in the police, can you just please tell the Committee, during 1980, where were you stationed?
MR VISSER: I was in 1980 a Divisional Head Commander at Soweto, working for the Security Forces.
MS VAN DER WALT: At the Security Branch?
MR VISSER: At the Security Branch.
MS VAN DER WALT: And your rank?
MR VISSER: I was a Colonel in the SA Police.
MS VAN DER WALT: And during that year, 1980, what was the security position in the country?
MR VISSER: It was explosive with regular infiltration from trained ANC and MK members, with attempts of sabotage and attacks on members of the public.
MS VAN DER WALT: You mention in paragraph 1 on page 24, that during 1980 when you were stationed at Soweto, during the run of that year an MK member had been arrested by the name of Scorpion. You say in your application that he was arrested in Soweto, would you like to comment on that?
MR VISSER: Chairperson, I would like please a change, he was interrogated at Soweto, but as far as my memory serves me I think he was after infiltration from Angola, handed over to me in the Western Transvaal because he was a subject of Soweto.
MS VAN DER WALT: So he was brought to you in Soweto because he came from Soweto originally?
MR VISSER: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: Can you remember what happened after he arrested?
MR VISSER: He was interrogated and he gave us very valuable information as well as declaring that he was willing to work with us.
MS VAN DER WALT: With that arrest, was that in terms of the old Section 6?
MR VISSER: Yes, the previous Act, Section 6.
MS VAN DER WALT: What was his background, can you remember? Was he a trained MK member?
MR VISSER: Yes, he was an MK trained member trained in Angola. He had been in Angola shortly before he came to South Africa.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did he then declare his intention to work for the Security Police?
MR VISSER: Yes, that's correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you handle him, can you just explain? You heard the questions raised to the other applicants, can you give us clarity in connection with handlers and so forth.
MR VISSER: I was the Divisional Commander and he was handled by Martin van Rooyen as agent/informant after he had been released.
MS VAN DER WALT: You say further that he did valuable work and that he also identified various people as terrorists, where did these tasks of his take place?
MR VISSER: It was in the Soweto environment and the Witwatersrand where he identified people.
MS VAN DER WALT: Is it as a result of his information that people were arrested, can you remember?
MR VISSER: No, I cannot factually remember whether people were arrested.
MS VAN DER WALT: You go forth in the second paragraph to say that in the last half of 1980, Maj van Rooyen came to you, can you determine the specific time, was it that period?
MR VISSER: As I remember it was the last half of 1980 that Maj van Rooyen came to me and after effective monitoring of this agent, had established that he was a double-agent and that he was no longer in favour of us.
MS VAN DER WALT: What happened thereafter?
MR VISSER: I, in co-operation with Maj van Rooyen, took the person to a police station at Klerkskraal, where we detained him as a suspect for further investigation.
MS VAN DER WALT: Under which name did you detain him there?
MR VISSER: I can't remember which name, but it was not his real name.
MS VAN DER WALT: Can you by any means remember his correct name or did you just handle him as Scorpion?
MR VISSER: That's how I remember him, that's the only name I can recall to identify him by.
MS VAN DER WALT: What is the reason, why did you detain him at Klerkskraal Police Station under a false name?
MR VISSER: He was already being detained and - sorry, had been released under Section 6 of the old Act, after saying that he would work with us and I couldn't detain him under the same Act and I needed and opportunity to investigate further and to write reports.
AN DER WALT: Do I understand you correctly that you wanted to be certain that he was actually working as a double-agent?
MR VISSER: Yes, that's correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you then monitor this information?
MR VISSER: Yes, I did.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you discuss it with any of your seniors?
MR VISSER: Yes, I transferred it to Brig Goosen, the then Head of Intelligence and explained to him how urgent this matter was, that the man was very dangerous for us.
MS VAN DER WALT: Can you please explain to the Committee why you - and it shows from your application later that Brigadier Goosen agreed with you, why did you consider it as dangerous after finding out that the person was a double-agent?
MR VISSER: He moved freely up to that stage and knew various members of the Security Branch and their movements and he had information touching on possible operations which showed that there could have been infiltration and information leaking from across our borders to terrorist groups.
MS VAN DER WALT: But why was it then necessary if you had determined this role of his, that you and Brig Goosen then decided to eliminate this man? Why was that essential?
MR VISSER: If he were to be released he could have done incalculable damage and could have jeopardised intelligence work. So it was essential that he be removed as soon as possible to limit that danger.
MS VAN DER WALT: And what did Brig Goosen ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Colonel, you are putting it quite broadly, please give us more details. You say that he could have damaged or harmed in a security sense.
MR VISSER: Well he had information regarding a warning, for instance at a terrorist camp in Angola a day before an operation was going to take place there, which indicated according to me, that there was a leak of information from our ranks. And then of course he knew me and some of the members and our movements.
MR LAX: Sorry, I didn't hear your whole answer, please repeat hit. You said - how did you find out about the leakage of information to Angola?
MR VISSER: Information which he provided during interrogation to us about certain warnings that they had received in Angola, concerning possible "optredes" by the South African Security Forces.
MR LAX: But how would this man have known of operations to take place in Angola?
MR VISSER: He was trained there.
MR LAX: But how would he have known what would have gone on there?
MR VISSER: Well as he told us during interrogation, Cubans warned the people in the camp to desert the camp, to evacuate the camp a day before the operation.
MR LAX: But I still have a problem. You say this man is a danger for you in terms of information regarding operations launched against camps in Angola. Now you caught him here, how could he be a problem for you in connection with that information?
MR VISSER: Well if he went back to them, if he turned back to the ANC and went into their ranks, he could make known to them that that information was given to us and then they could warn people and that could make the situation difficult to remove agents.
MR LAX: But there were thousands agents in the system, may people were involved in the system, in the State system, who gave out information, who would know where that information came from?
MR VISSER: That's exactly the danger if he should go back to them.
MR LAX: But you could not give him anything in terms of operations in Angola etc., you weren't involved in that.
MR VISSER: No, I wasn't.
MR LAX: And van Rooyen wasn't either. You were involved in interior things, so how could that create a problem for someone working outside?
MR VISSER: Just the fact that he could have done harm to intelligence investigations.
MR LAX: I still ask how is it possible that it could be such a vital problem that you have to kill someone for it?
MR VISSER: It's one of the reasons, Mr Chair. The fact that he could move, that he knew the handler, that he knew the movements of some of the other members, even my movements, that was also among others, one of the reasons.
MR LAX: As far as you know, who was his handler?
MR VISSER: Van Rooyen, Martin van Rooyen.
MR LAX: Please continue, I'll ask more questions later.
MS VAN DER WALT: When you say movements, you say that he knew your movements as well as some of the other members, by movements do you mean that which you were working with at that point, the type of investigation you were doing at that point because you trusted him to gather certain information for you? For instance he was told to investigate let us say, person A, is that what you mean with movements, the types of investigations that you did he was familiar with those and that if he came out as a double-agent, that he would have transferred that information to the enemy?
MR VISSER: Among others he could have carried that information over, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And that would have hindered your work.
MR VISSER: It would have hindered out work.
MS VAN DER WALT: You said that you then spoke to Brig Goosen, what was then decided, that he had to be eliminated?
MR VISSER: Yes, Brig Goosen gave me an order that he was to be removed.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you heard now the evidence of Mr van Zyl, are you in agreement with it as far as it relates to you?
MR VISSER: Yes, I do.
MS VAN DER WALT: Can you tell the Committee why you approached him?
MR VISSER: Mr van Zyl was known to me and I trusted him and he was a member who fell outside my sphere of command, outside of Soweto, I did not want to compromise one of my own people to be involved in such an operation.
MS VAN DER WALT: You have before appeared before an Amnesty Committee and throughout all these applications reference has been made to a need-to-know basis. Was it like with you and was that also why you approached van Zyl?
MR VISSER: Yes, that's correct, Mr Chairman.
MS VAN DER WALT: And when Mr van Zyl came to help you, did you give him the order that this person had to be eliminated from society?
MR VISSER: Yes, I did, I requested him.
MS VAN DER WALT: If I listen to Mr van Zyl's evidence, is it correct that you left all the finer points of the arrangements to him?
MR VISSER: Yes, correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you go to Josini dam?
MR VISSER: It was a place that had been identified as possibly acceptable and I believed it could work because it was near to the Mozambique border.
MR VISSER: And you left that all to Mr van Zyl?
MR VISSER: That's correct, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: Also the arrangements with the other applicant, Mr Gold, you knew nothing of that but you approved of it because you transferred it to Mr van Zyl.
MR VISSER: I had no liaison with any of the members, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: This person, Scorpion, when you went to fetch him at Klerkskraal Police Station, did you put him in handcuffs or did you - there is evidence that he possibly looked as if he was drugged, can you comment on that?
MR VISSER: He was in handcuffs, Mr Chair, and I had not given him anything to sedate him and as far as I'm concerned no-one else did.
MS VAN DER WALT: You said that you kept him there, detained him there under a false name and got further confirmation of the fact that he was a double-agent. When you fetched him there again, what did you say to him, because you had detained him? Did he know why he was detained? Let's start there.
MR VISSER: I told him that there were problems around his movements in Soweto and that that was the reason why we first had to keep him on ice as it were and then when I fetched him I told him that it was cleared up and that we intended to use him in another place.
MS VAN DER WALT: So does it sometimes happen that an informer gathers intelligence in a certain area and is then moved?
MR VISSER: Yes, that's correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: You heard from the evidence that you drove down to Pongola, did you give him coffee there?
MR VISSER: Yes, we all - van Zyl and myself, we all had coffee.
MS VAN DER WALT: Eventually you reached the farmhouse near the dam, is that correct?
MR VISSER: That's correct, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: What did you do there, were you there with the person or where did you go?
MR VISSER: I was not near him or near the house, I was a little way from there on the dam shore waiting for the boat fetched by Mr Schoon.
MS VAN DER WALT: Where did you see Mr Schoon for the first time?
MR VISSER: At Josini, at the Security Branch when we arrived there.
MS VAN DER WALT: And did you know Mr Gold beforehand?
MR VISSER: No, I didn't know him.
MS VAN DER WALT: And Mr Carr?
MR VISSER: Carr, yes, I had had dealings with him before but I also saw him there for the first time.
MS VAN DER WALT: I just want to refer you, you say that you gave orders to Mr Gold - I want to refer to page 25, paragraph 4, you said
"We transported Scorpion to Northern Natal where I told Schoon, Carr and Gold to help me get rid of Scorpion."
Did you mean with that - because you heard the evidence that Mr van Zyl contacted Mr Gold, that these people did it because you gave the order in the whole?
MR VISSER: Yes, with my presence there I interpreted it as that I requested them to help with the elimination.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you also accept that they did all these actions under your instructions.
MR VISSER: Yes, I accept.
MS VAN DER WALT: You were then at the dam and Mr Schoon brought the boat there, is that correct?
MR VISSER: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you accompany them to the island in the dam?
MR VISSER: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: You were not present when the person was shot.
MR VISSER: No, I wasn't.
MS VAN DER WALT: Can you remember any second explosion taking place there or do you remember only one explosion?
MR VISSER: I remember only one explosion.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you help at all with placing the explosives?
MR VISSER: No.
MS VAN DER WALT: After that incident, where did you go then?
MR VISSER: After the explosion we inspected the place and then we departed back to our places.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you get in touch with Brig Goosen again afterwards?
MR VISSER: No.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you not report to him?
MR VISSER: No.
MS VAN DER WALT: Your application says that you reported back to him after the operation was completed, when you got back to Pretoria.
MR VISSER: Oh in Pretoria? Yes, yes, I did report to him that it then had been done, but I didn't have any further discussions with him.
MS VAN DER WALT: I want to refer you to the photographs. You also saw these photographs of a person, do you know this person?
MR VISSER: I cannot place this photograph.
MS VAN DER WALT: This one?
MR VISSER: That neither.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you know a person by the name of Oupa Ronald Madondo?
MR VISSER: Yes, I knew such a person.
MS VAN DER WALT: How did you know him?
MR VISSER: In terms of security reports prepared in Soweto regarding his Black Power involvement.
MS VAN DER WALT: Can you tell the Committee of the difference between Black Power and ordinary terrorist investigations?
MR VISSER: Black Power is a political Black Power activity, such as the BCP or Black Power Organisations which served as fronts in a certain period of time in the RSA, who were actively busy having meetings and organising certain negative aspects.
MS VAN DER WALT: Such persons were not summarily arrested because they belonged to Black Power activities.
MR VISSER: Very seldom, except if it led to public violence and so on.
MS VAN DER WALT: So although you cannot say that the photo is Oupa Ronald Madondo, you do know of him. Can you - if you think back, because you can't remember Scorpion's real name, and if you look at this photo, can you give the Committee a possible indication as to whether it could possibly have been Scorpion, or how did Scorpion's looks differ.
MR VISSER: I cannot place this photograph, Mr Chair, I cannot give any indication if it could have been him.
MS VAN DER WALT: If this is Ronald Madondo then he was not Scorpion, are you sure?
MR VISSER: I am very sure of that because Ronald Madondo was, as I say, active in the are of high ...(intervention)
MS VAN DER WALT: I see on page 122, Mr Chair, that there was a detainment in terms of Section 6(1), it's an application, it seems to me to be a police document, it's was the Commanding Officer by the name of du Preez who signed this, where they spoke of the release of Madondo from a police station. Are you aware of this? It looks as if it was in 1979.
MR VISSER: It is possible that he was detained, yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: But you did not detain him.
MR VISSER: But I did not detain him, no.
MS VAN DER WALT: Then it appears as if on 20.9.79 there was a letter from Commissioner Broderyk who referred to an alleged assault and that it was being investigated. Do you have any knowledge of an assault?
MR VISSER: No, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: Was Scorpion ever assaulted, did he ever lay any charges regarding assault?
MR VISSER: Not as far as I know.
MS VAN DER WALT: It would appear as if Scorpion was arrested in early 1980 and was then recruited as an informer. It is strange to me, if these letters are correct, where long allegations are made by Oupa Madondo about having been assaulted, letters from 30.08.1979, then it could definitely not be Scorpion because Scorpion was only recruited early in 1980 and killed in the middle of that year.
MR VISSER: Scorpion was definitely not identical with Madondo. The name, to me it was general knowledge in terms of reports that I had read in other matters, Mr Chair.
MS VAN DER WALT: If Scorpion - let me rephrase. If Ronald Madondo were a trained terrorist, would you have arrested him?
MR VISSER: Yes, he would have been arrested immediately.
MS VAN DER WALT: Because I'm not certain yet what the case of the family is, we will look into that, but it appears here that there's a Mr Meyer from Interior Security - Chairperson, this morning there was also a document handed out, a further statement from Mr Meyer, I don't know how the Committee is going to put that into the bundle or whether it will be an Exhibit A.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't know who is handing it in but we could call it Exhibit A, yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: It is actually - Mr Wagener apparently said that I would basically be the postman in this regard, I am not handing it in, I just brought it along from Pretoria.
CHAIRPERSON: If we want to use it then the fact is that we have to give it a number. Let us call it Exhibit A.
MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Exhibit A.
MS VAN DER WALT: This Mr Meyer apparently has access to all the records of all informers and that kind of information at Police Headquarters. He referred to a certain Adv MacAdam, or made enquiries on his behalf and it appeared that Mr Madondo, on the typed page of Exhibit A, typed page 2, he says Madondo was also known as Ronald and according to the police records also had two MK names, namely Prince and Rue, he says according to the information on the computer he was not known as MK Scorpion. So this is in accordance with what you are saying, that the Scorpion that this investigation is about is definitely not Ronald.
MR VISSER: It definitely isn't, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: What also is very insightful, referring to the other letters, is the information that related to Madondo, that there is no information regarding Madondo after 1978, which rhymes with what you are saying that you worked with Scorpion in 1980.
MR VISSER: I did work with him in 1980.
CHAIRPERSON: Could you please just give me a moment here. On page 122 we have a 1979 letter and on page also on page 121 an October 1979 letter, now if that relates to Ronald Madondo, then I don't understand how Meyer can say that there is no information on him after 1978.
MS VAN DER WALT: What I want to submit is - it's a pity Mr Meyer is not here, what I want to submit is that - the Brigadier can maybe help us, that if one looks at this information it could possibly indicate information which Madondo gave to the Security Police. I don't know whether the assault would have been worked into that input, but that is my view, I may be mistaken.
MR LAX: Can I just add something. There is no impression given by these documents to suggest that Madondo gave any information to the Security Police. He was active and he was detained, but there is nothing here that says he gave information to the police. So I just wanted to correct that. ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MS VAN DER WALT: I can't reply to that, but I would submit that all indications are that this must definitely be someone other than Madondo. As I've said, I have heard that Mr Meyer was supposed to have been here today. But we can't speculate on that.
I would like to also put it to you further that Mr MacAdam ...(intervention)
MR LAX: Sorry, just for the record, he was actually subpoenaed but he's honouring another subpoena, so he can't be in two places a the same time.
MS VAN DER WALT: I have heard so, Chairperson.
On page 114, Mr MacAdam says that he unfortunately does not have a statement of Mr Nyanda, but it refers to Mr Nyanda who in those years was known as Kabusa, is that correct?
MR VISSER: That's correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: What was his position in the ANC?
MR VISSER: He was the Commander of the Transvaal machinery from Swaziland.
MS VAN DER WALT: So he would have known the military MKs from Swaziland, working from Swaziland.
MR VISSER: Yes, that is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: Mr MacAdam says here, with this interview that he had with Mr Nyanda, that Oupa Ronald Madondo was known as Rue and as Prince, and he goes on to say that this is the name by which he was known among MK members, but you insist that it was not Scorpion.
MR VISSER: Yes, I do. The Scorpion I knew and Ronald Madondo are not the same person, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: You have now heard the other evidence and you confirm it. Are you asking for amnesty for any misdemeanour, any offence arising from this incident?
MR VISSER: Yes, I do.
MS VAN DER WALT: And any delict arising from this.
MR VISSER: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you, when you and Brig Goosen decided to eliminate Scorpion, did you do that through hate or malice or revenge?
MR VISSER: Not at all, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And did you gain personally in any way from this conduct of yours?
MR VISSER: No, I did not.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you see it as essential in that time to maintain the government of the day and to protect the South African Police?
MR VISSER: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you believe that it was upon instruction of the Security Headquarters that you should do that?
MR VISSER: Yes, that is true, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
MR LAX: Can I just clarify something before we start cross-examination? It just flows out directly from the last point, if I may.
Brigadier, I understood from your answer that this person that you know as Oupa Ronald Madondo was a Black Power activist, have I understood you correctly?
MR VISSER: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR LAX: And that is distinct from an MK activist.
MR VISSER: Yes, it is a person who has no military training whatsoever as far as we know.
MR LAX: You see, the person that's being referred to in these papers is an MK activist, not a Black Power activist, so it must be some other Ronald Oupa Madondo that you don't know about, because the one you know was a Black Power activist. Have I understood you correctly?
MR VISSER: The Ronald Madondo that from informational reports in Soweto is known to me, is the one who as far as I know, was involved with Black Power activities.
MR LAX: Yes, but it's clear from these documents before us and from the family's documentation, that their Oupa Ronald Madondo and the one that is being spoken about in these papers by Meyer and others, MacAdam and so on, is an MK operative. He was a member of MK, he'd been out of the country and trained militarily. Now the inference one draws from that is that the Madondo you have in mind is a different Madondo to this Madondo. Would you concede that?
MR VISSER: I will have to concede it because the one that I knew, according to my knowledge had not had military training. It could have been, but according to my knowledge he had not had military training.
CHAIRPERSON: If I may just link to this. These three photos, all three relate to Oupa Madondo who got training in Angola.
MR VISSER: I don't know that, Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Well that is what the family says, the family identify these three persons, according to the information on the files, as Oupa Madondo. According to the security photo, 2282 from the album, this Oupa Madondo was an MK member who was wanted and the family says, as I understood from the cross-examination, that these photo's on pages 140, 141 and 142, are all photos of the brother of the victim witness here and her brother was called Oupa Madondo and he got training in Angola and he disappeared in October/November 1979.
MR VISSER: All I'm trying to say, Mr Chair, is that the person, if his name was Oupa Ronald Madondo, then that would have rung a bell with me, but the Scorpion that I had to do with was not identical with Oupa Ronald Madondo. One's memory can play one's ...(indistinct), but sometimes it comes back if a name that is related is heard.
CHAIRPERSON: But you also had to do with this person. Were you present when he was interrogated about this double-agent role?
MR VISSER: I was. After Maj van Rooyen reported to me I was present, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Now you in other words saw this person on and off for a couple of days and you say that's not his photos.
MR VISSER: I cannot positively place these photographs, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: But if those are the photos of Oupa Madondo or a person known as Oupa Madondo and the person you have in mind as Oupa Madondo is another person who according to you is not this person ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: Yes, that is what I would say, Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: ... and the person according to you who was killed was this other person, Scorpion, not the person on these photos?
MR VISSER: I cannot place him. This Scorpion under discussion in my application I cannot place in regard to these photos, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: You say you can't place him, but could it be him?
MR VISSER: Not if it's alleged that the name of the person is Oupa Ronald Madondo, then I would say that it's not correct. Scorpion was not identical to Oupa Madondo. The one in my application was not identical to Oupa Madondo. I would have remember that name if I had been confronted with it.
CHAIRPERSON: But you do recall a name Oupa Madondo?
MR VISSER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But according to your memory it was another person.
MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And he was not an MK, that person.
MR VISSER: It was not Scorpion, that's what I mean. He was another person other than Scorpion. As far as I know he was not an MK member. He could have been and that it was not known to me.
CHAIRPERSON: But Scorpion was an MK member.
MR VISSER: Yes, arrested, trained MK member.
CHAIRPERSON: And Oupa was not an MK member.
MR VISSER: As far as my knowledge goes no, he wasn't. It was not know to me that he was.
CHAIRPERSON: Was he ever arrested, Oupa?
MR VISSER: He could have been, but I can't confirm that or deny it at this stage. There was more than one department in Soweto.
CHAIRPERSON: Well according to our documents he was arrested.
MR VISSER: It could have been John Vorster Square, which also operated at Soweto, or a place in that vicinity.
MR LAX: If a person were detained in terms of Section 6 of the so-called Terrorism Act, would you as Branch Commander have known of that?
MR VISSER: If he had been detained by my branch, yes most probably.
MR LAX: If he came from Soweto?
MR VISSER: And was detained by Johannesburg? Then I would not necessarily have known of it, no.
MR LAX: What you can say with certainty though, is that the Madondo that you know of would not have been detained because he was just involved in Black Power activities.
MR VISSER: No, the Madondo that I knew at that stage, yes, he was involved with Black Power activities.
MR LAX: So that person is a different person from this Madondo that is discussed in the documents.
MR VISSER: I can't say, it appears to be, yes.
MR LAX: And as far as these photographs are concerned, these photos don't ring any bell for you?
MR VISSER: Please repeat.
MR LAX: You don't know the person in these photos?
MR VISSER: No, I don't. I cannot relate the photos to anything.
MR LAX: Can you say with any certainty or give us information regarding the appearance of the deceased?
MR VISSER: All I know is that he was a smallish man, shortish man, relatively short.
MR LAX: Nothing else?
MR VISSER: No, I can't remember anything more. If I could see a very clear photograph then I may be able to identify him.
MR LAX: So you can't even say - you can't recall his image in your mind.
MR VISSER: No, I can't, I'm sorry.
MR LAX: Thank you, Mr Chair.
ADV SANDI: That makes me even more confused about this. If you cannot recall a clear image of this person in your mind now, how are you able to say the image that appears on page 140 and 141 cannot be that person?
MNR VISSER: "Die eerste instansie is, dis amper 20 jaar gelede, mnr die Voorsitter, en my geheue wil dit hê dat terwyl Scorpion, die opgeleide MK lid ondervra was, was Madondo nog in Soweto bedrywig met Swart Mag bedrywighede en so aan". ...(no English interpretation)
ADV SANDI: I hear that you have attempted to give some kind of physical description of the Madondo in respect of whose murder you are applying for amnesty for, Scorpion in other words.
MNR VISSER: "Ek het 'n beskrywing van Scorpion probeer gee, dat dit 'n baie kort persoon was, klein persoon was".
ADV SANDI: Yes. What was his complexion, was he a very dark person, fair complexioned?
MNR VISSER: "Nee hy was nie baie donker gewees nie, Voorsitter".
ADV SANDI: The other Madondo you say you used ...(indistinct) from the Black Power Movement, what was his profile there, did he hold any portfolio in the Black Power movement?
MR VISSER: I cannot at this stage remember whether he held any position, Mr Chair.
ADV SANDI: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you done?
MS VAN DER WALT: I am finished.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WILLS: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairperson.
Mr Visser, just on the identification, you say that you had something to do with the handling of this person, you weren't this handler, there was this other person, I think it was Martin Coetzee, Martin van Rooyen who was the actual handler, but he reported to you.
CHAIRPERSON: Martin Coetzee is our ...(indistinct - no microphone)
MR VISSER: Martin van Rooyen was his handler and he reported to me regarding production and so on.
MR WILLS: Yes, so you would have known this person pretty well. You would have had records on this person, Scorpion.
MR VISSER: Yes, I knew him reasonably well in terms of the interrogations done and the fact that Martin van Rooyen handled him and so on, Mr Chair.
MR WILLS: Surely one of the things that you would have known about him is his real name. It would have been recorded, because this person had been turned over, as it were, you would have known that information, it wouldn't have been something secret to you. This person Scorpion. Can't you remember his real name?
MR VISSER: It must be recorded some place I believe, but I can't put my hand on it at this moment. And the name that sticks in my memory is Scorpion and that is why I asked for amnesty under that name, mentioning that name of his.
MR WILLS: But you must ...(intervention)
ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Wills, can I just come in here, maybe you will be moving on to something else.
You see one thing I have a difficulty to understand here is, did you say Scorpion was his MK name?
MR VISSER: That's correct, that's his Umkhonto name.
ADV SANDI: You did not give him your own name, your own codename after you had turned him?
MR VISSER: I didn't give him another name. I am not aware of the fact that he got another name, that is how I remember him. It could be that he got another name.
ADV SANDI: Yes, but just tell me, what was the normal practice if you turn an MK or APLA cadre to work for you and leave his own organisation, would you not give him your own codename and not continue calling him by the same name he was using whilst in that liberation movement?
MR VISSER: A name would have been given to him normally, or a code number or something would have been given to him, but this is the name that stuck in my memory after 20 years, from which I identify the person or the incident.
ADV SANDI: But if Martin van Rooyen came to you to give you the report as to the progress this man was making in his work, who would he call him? How would he refer to him?
MR VISSER: I can't remember what name he was called, he could have had a code number, an informant number in a report without a name on it, Mr Chair.
ADV SANDI: But if there was some other name he was using to refer to him, isn't that logically and naturally the type of name that would stick in your mind and not Scorpion?
MR VISSER: No, the name that stuck with me was the name that became known during the man's interrogation, his MK name. That is the name I remembered in the light of the information that we got from him, Mr Chair.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Carry on, Mr Wills.
MR LAX: Sorry, I just want to check one thing here, I'm puzzled now.
Did I hear you correctly, did you say that it was normal that once someone had been turned and had agreed to work for the police as a spy, they would get a different name, they wouldn't necessarily carry on using their MK name?
MR VISSER: Yes, it's possible that he - it was not normal for him to use his old MK name, he would use his normal name or a codename according to an informant's number, according to which he would be handled.
MR LAX: So it's just as conceivable that this name Scorpion that you remember so well, might actually be a new codename that he assumed once he decided to work for you.
MR VISSER: No, that is the name I remember from during the time of the interrogation, that is the name that I remembered. I can't think of another name.
MR LAX: What I'm asking you is this, is it not possible that you're making a mistake and that this name Scorpion is in fact his new codename after he decided to work for you and that's the name that van Rooyen would have then used to refer to him as and you in your dealings with him thereafter would have used that name? Is it not possible that you're mistaken, that this was his "Chimorenga" name that he would have used in the struggle, his nom de guerre, so to speak?
MR VISSER: Anything is possible, Mr Chair, I cannot remember precisely, it's 20 years ago that ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, we understand that you cannot recall, but we just want to try to clear this up. If I get a name of a person known among the ANC as Scorpion, then I would not take that informer and send him back with another name, I won't send him back to the ANC, you would use him under the same name that they know. Why would he no longer be known as Scorpion?
MR VISSER: That's correct, Sir.
MR LAX: You see that's why I didn't understand your answer, because you said it wasn't normal to carry on using his ordinary name, his previous name, you said it wasn't normal for that to happen. In my experience it's very normal, in fact in my experience all the askaris that I've ever known of used their original names that they had when they were MK people, so they wouldn't get confused. That's why I didn't understand your answer and I emphasised it.
MR VISSER: I also didn't understand your question quite clearly, that is why we got confused. I can't give a factual explanation regarding this.
MR LAX: Sorry, Mr Wills, we've stopped your examination for a long time.
MR WILLS: Just one issue, Mr Visser. You're heard Mr Gold's testimony regarding the compartmentation of information in relation to the fact that when he was given an order by his immediate superior, who at the time was Mr van Zyl, that it wouldn't be proper for him in following the procedures at Security Branch, for him to ask questions about that and ask Visser who he got that order from. Do you agree with that?
MR VISSER: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR WILLS: Just to be clear, it would be very uncommon for Gold to say in those circumstances to Visser, sorry to van Zyl, that "where did you get this order from, did you get this from Pretoria", he would just accept that and that would be common practice in the Security Branch.
MR VISSER: Yes, he would have accepted it as he got it.
MR WILLS: Yes. And also, it would be uncommon for him to question that order in any regard whatsoever, is that not so?
MR VISSER: No, it doesn't as per normal, that people question such instructions.
MR WILLS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WILLS
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Visser, Mr van Zyl said that you told him that the reasons why Brig Piet Goosen gave instructions for this man to be eliminated, there were a number of reasons. The first was, he could endanger his handler and other members of the Security Force if he went back to the ANC because he knew too much of their movements, is that correct?
MR VISSER: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: Then there was another reason which he said you gave him, namely - now I must talk a bit wider, do you agree with Mr van Zyl that you, that's now Soweto, Witwatersrand, Eastern Transvaal and Natal, had reasonably entrenched intelligence networks in Swaziland?
MR VISSER: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: In this process of Scorpion now turning back or turning to the Security Police, working for the Security Police, surely there was an intention to use him to gather information for you, not so, that's why one has an agent?
MR VISSER: Yes, that is the case.
MR BOOYENS: Would he in this process have obtained information from your intelligence or about your intelligence networks in Swaziland, or how would that have worked?
MR VISSER: It could have happened that he might have got information with certain of the activities, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: It is also true from what Mr van Zyl said, that where one - and I think one needs to distinguish a little bit here between agents and informants, an agent is a man who is infiltrated into another country, another organisation, as a sort of a spy, isn't that true?
MR VISSER: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: That when those agents, when they are debriefed in Swaziland, then these security people would have to contact him, not so?
MR VISSER: Yes, they have to talk to each other physically.
MR BOOYENS: In such a case a traitor who, or let's call him a double-traitor, would then be able to give him information which would jeopardise the whole network, is that true?
MR VISSER: Yes, he would jeopardise the network.
MR BOOYENS: And as you understood it from van Rooyen, because that's the information upon which you mainly reacted, Scorpion would also have endangered your information network potentially, in Swaziland, if he went back to the ANC.
MR VISSER: Yes, he would have been able, among others Swaziland, to do harm.
MR BOOYENS: Is it also not true that without your information networks - we know that the Security Police had those, Botswana had those everywhere I suppose, without your information networks your effectiveness to combat enemy powers, would have been highly constrained, not so?
MR VISSER: Yes, Sir, that's true.
MR BOOYENS: Let us get back to the whole question of -basically it goes to the terrain of counter-espionage, you mentioned Scorpion during his interrogation, giving you information that the Cubans beforehand had got information regarding an intended attack on a base in Angola.
MR VISSER: That's correct.
MR BOOYENS: This information set in motion an investigation of a spy within the South African Security Forces, who gave that information to the Cubans. Did it?
MR VISSER: I don't know, I don't know whether it set it in motion or whether it was confirmation for an investigation already under way.
MR BOOYENS: Yes, but that information was then proved to be correct. Was the spy caught?
MR VISSER: Yes, he was caught, Dieter Gerhard was caught.
MR BOOYENS: Now to come back to that aspect because the Committee was unclear on that. If the investigation is now under way to catch this spy within your own ranks, if Scorpion goes back to his people, the ANC people, would he be able to hinder or impede the investigation against this spy? Because he would have told them that such was the information that he had given the South African Police and that that's why they know.
MR VISSER: I suppose yes, it could have had an implication on the outcome of the espionage case
MR BOOYENS: So here we have a situation where it was judged by Piet Goosen and discussed with you, that the deceased, Scorpion, had too much sensitive information about the Security Police, Security operations, that this information could not go back to the opposition powers, and by that I mean the ANC, without endangering the whole struggle and without endangering people's lives. Is that the reason why he had to be killed?
MR VISSER: Yes, that is correct.
MR BOOYENS: And you may not - and that is in essence the information that you - the motivation let's say, that you gave to Sakkie van Zyl in a nutshell, for the request to him to help you. Is that correct?
MR VISSER: Yes, it is correct.
MR BOOYENS: If we look at Sakkie van Zyl's exact situation, it seems as if one can sum it up as follows more-or-less. Firstly, there was an instruction from Piet Goosen that Scorpion had to be eliminated and had to disappear, to be made to disappear, to put it crudely. This instruction came back to you, is that right? - from Piet Goosen.
MR VISSER: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: You then had to find someone to perform or to execute the instruction.
MR VISSER: That's correct.
MR BOOYENS: To use Soweto Security Branch would mean compromising some of your own people in a situation of an informant who worked with them.
MR VISSER: That's correct.
MR BOOYENS: So did you think that in that case it would have an influence on the moral of your branch?
MR VISSER: I think it would have had an impact, yes.
MR BOOYENS: Is that why you decided to make use of an "outsider" from another Security Branch?
MR VISSER: Yes, that's correct.
MR BOOYENS: And you then, as Mr van Zyl said, sketched the picture to him and asked him to help to give execution in other words, to Goosen's instruction.
MR VISSER: Yes, that's correct.
MR BOOYENS: May I just take instructions please. Thank you, Mr Chair, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Visser, Mr Carr, as well as Mr Schoon whom I represent, both believed that this was a well thought out decision to eliminate this person and that there was no other way out, do you agree?
MR VISSER: Yes, I do.
MR PRINSLOO: And that due and proper instruction had come to you and to Mr van Zyl that it had to be informed.
MR VISSER: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: When a person is trained as a member of MK, he leaves the country, comes back and then normally doesn't move openly, is that correct?
MR VISSER: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: In most cases police were looking for them at their houses and so on regularly, they knew they'd got training.
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, we did.
MR PRINSLOO: This person referred to as Scorpion, who was a trained person, if he now is released in Johannesburg, would you expect him to go and tell his family that he was now working for the SA Police?
MR VISSER: No, he would not have done that.
MR PRINSLOO: Would an informant have indicated that he was an informant, especially in that specific time when informants were killed?
MR VISSER: No, such a person would not have done that.
MR PRINSLOO: Is there any reason for you not to tell this Committee who this person was if you knew another name for him?
MR VISSER: No, I would have liked to positively identify this man to clarify all these unclarities, but I cannot remember it.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS SAMUEL: Mr Visser, when this person was arrested by the name of Scorpion, how much contact did you have with him?
MNR VISSER: "Ek het aan en af skakeling met hom gehad terwyl hy ondervra is en daarna, nadat hy vrygelaat is, het Maj van Rooyen hom hanteer". ...(no English interpretation)
CHAIRPERSON: Could you kindly assist her. I think it should be on channel 2.
MR WILLS: I have the same problem, it wasn't translated for me either.
MR LAX: Ian, there may be a problem in the box.
CHAIRPERSON: Which channel would be from Afrikaans to English.
INTERPRETER: I'm on the English channel now, Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: But I believe they've got problems on channel 2.
INTERPRETER: No, channel 2 is okay.
MS SAMUEL: It is now clear, I can hear.
INTERPRETER: Thanks.
MR LAX: Mr Visser, can you just repeat the answer so that one could hear it again, please.
MR VISSER: I beg your pardon?
MR LAX: Could you just repeat your answer because it seems as if those who require the English didn't hear it. ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: To do with the liaison, I had liaison with him on and off as a Division Commander. I could not be there full-time and after that Martin van Rooyen handled him.
CHAIRPERSON: Let us clear that up. What happened to Martin van Rooyen?
MR VISSER: Unfortunately he died a couple of years ago of a heart attack, he was very young, dying of his heart.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, then we know that now because we refer to him and we don't know where he is or whether he's applied for amnesty or what.
MS SAMUEL: You told us that in fact this person, Oupa Ronald Madondo, is not the same person as that of Scorpion from the photographs that you've looked at, but on page 132 you said that this person in fact, Oupa Ronald Madondo, was in fact a person involved in Black Power, but on page 132 there's an enquiry check which in fact shows this person as being an MK - 132 to page 133, he was a member in fact of the African National Congress.
MR VISSER: I was at that stage not aware of the fact that he was a member of the MK in 1980, Mr Chair.
MS SAMUEL: Are you saying now then this person could - Oupa Ronald Madondo could have been in fact a member of the MK?
MR VISSER: That is possible, I don't want to say that I knew everything at the time.
MS SAMUEL: Also on page 107 there is a statement from the girlfriend of this person, Ronald Madondo, who says that you after the disappearance or after the arrest of Ronald Madondo, you were in fact - she says a Mr Visser in fact was stationed at Protea station, questioned her about Ronald. Were you in fact stationed at Protea Police Station? That's on page - sorry, Mr Chairman, it's 109 to 110. Were you in fact stationed at Protea Police Station?
MR VISSER: I was related to that station, yes.
MS SAMUEL: Then in the light of that she says that you in fact questioned her about Ronald, would it then be correct to say that the person Scorpion and Ronald Madondo is one and the same person?
MR VISSER: I cannot remember that I interrogated any person regarding this incident, Mr Chairperson.
MS SAMUEL: What was the necessity of you having to actually in fact eliminate him, this person Scorpion?
MR VISSER: I have already said that, also Mr Booyens clarification just now of all the reasons why it was necessary.
MS SAMUEL: Why could you have not in fact then just detained him for a lengthy period?
MR VISSER: He had already been detained before being released and had promised to work with us and he could not be detained, according to law, for a second time for the same, under the same Section.
MR LAX: Sorry, with the greatest of respect, Brigadier, how could the law prevent you from doing that? If you had evidence that the man was working for the ANC, you could have detained him. And on your version you had the evidence, he was being a double-agent, why couldn't you have detained him? You could have prosecuted him for having undergone military training in a foreign country. From these reports it's clear that if it was the same man, you had all the information at your disposal. So to say the law prevented you from detaining him again, with respect, is absolutely incorrect.
MR VISSER: My interpretation, Mr Chair, was that if a person had been detained under Section 6 and was released under those clauses, then you may not later again detain such a person under that same article's provisions. That was my interpretation, I don't know if it is right.
MR LAX: I won't engage with a debate with you about it, but numerous people were arrested, released, arrested, released, over and over again under the same Section, sometimes on the same incidents. But let's not engage in a debate about past legislation. I think the point is you had new information on him and you've given that evidence that van Rooyen told you about new information, it was being a double-agent. It was so bad you wanted to kill him because your people were in danger. So there was a whole new cause to arrest the man. Do you understand my point? It's not the same facts, it's a new set of facts.
MR VISSER: Yes, I understand, Mr Chairperson.
MR LAX: But the question remains, why didn't you just arrest him and prosecute him or arrest him and detain him indefinitely, as hundreds of other were?
MR VISSER: I did not release people in that way and detain them again later, Mr Chair. It is possible that it happened.
MR LAX: Sorry, please continue, Ms Samuel.
MS SAMUEL: Why was it necessary for you now to eliminate all traces of this man?
MR VISSER: Because we wanted to keep outside knowledge about murder by the SA Police closed, we did not want that information to get out, Mr Chair.
MS SAMUEL: But there were numerous other persons besides this person who were also eliminated, but not every trace of that person was removed, would you agree?
MR VISSER: Yes, other people were killed in other ways.
MS SAMUEL: Then what was the necessity of in fact removing every trace of him?
MR VISSER: That was what the instruction was and what I believed to be the best, Mr Chair.
MS SAMUEL: You said you believed it to be the best, now why would you say that? The best instruction, total elimination of a person without any trace, why would you say that?
MR VISSER: The instruction was that he be removed so that he cannot be traced and the use of explosives in this regard was the most effective way.
MS SAMUEL: You see according to the family, their instructions are that in fact this person whom we are saying is Ronald Oupa Madondo was in fact not a double-agent. The reason why he was eliminated was because he had refused to in fact cooperate with you in furnishing vital information with regard to the ANC, and that was the reason why he in fact was totally eliminated.
MR VISSER: I will not be able to declare anything there because the person that I had dealt with was not Madondo, so I cannot clarify that or object against it.
MS VAN DER WALT: May I just ask here, is it set as a fact here that that evidence is going to be presented, because we do not have such statements? Is being put as a fact before us, is there such evidence? Because if that's the case, then the exact allegations should be put to my client and who is going to make those allegations, so that we can reply to that. Thank you.
MS SAMUEL: The allegations - it is being put as a fact and the allegations will be made in fact by the sister of the deceased.
You have indicated that you cannot say whether in fact this person, Ronald Madondo, is one and the same person as that of Scorpion. Now there were some statements made by Mr Gold, who said in fact the time when this person by the name of Scorpion was being conveyed, he in fact heard names such as Rupert, Robin, what do you say? Those are in fact very close names to the names like Ronald, Rue. What do you say about that?
MR VISSER: I am still convinced, Mr Chair, that the person, Scorpion, with whom I had dealings, is not identical with Madondo, Donald or Madondo.
MS SAMUEL: Did you in fact speak to this person, did you call him by any name when you spoke to him whilst he was being conveyed?
MR VISSER: I spoke to him, I cannot remember what name I called him, but I did have a conversation with him. It was not necessary to name a name every time, if you are with a person you just talk to him without a specific name.
MS SAMUEL: Could it be possible that given the time that has lapsed since this happened, that you perhaps cannot in fact remember maybe this person very well, this person Oupa Ronald Madondo and that is why you cannot identify him from those pictures?
MR VISSER: The possibility exists, Mr Chair, but even so, I believe that if the name that was reasonably known to me, if that name had come to me I would have been able ...
MR LAX: Except to say, Sir, that it's clear that you're mistaken about the name, because there's someone with an identical name who, from your reports, is different to the person the victims are talking about. So if that's the only link that you're using, how can you at all be certain that this isn't the same person?
MR VISSER: If this person Scorpion, if he and Madondo were identical and the name Madondo was mentioned to me over and over, then most probably I could have remembered that they were identical, but the Madondo that I know - I was in Soweto in 1976, he was mainly involved in Black Power operations and from '76 a couple hundred or thousands of reports went through ...(intervention)
MR LAX: The point is a simple one, Sir, and it's this - and I don't mean to be patronising or disrespectful, if the only Madondo you can remember is someone connected with Black Power, then either you are mistaken about this Madondo who is connected to the ANC and to MK and who was trained in Angola, or they might well be the same person and your memory's bothering you and it's just letting you down, in which case the Scorpion that you have in mind might well be the same person. The point is, if your memory has let you down you're not in a position to admit or deny it and if you're already confused about one Madondo, who is the only Madondo you remember and you say you remember from reports, then clearly something is wrong and all you're really being asked is to concede that something's wrong and that your memory isn't as good as you might want to otherwise suggest it is and that the possibility therefore exists that they may well be the same person. Because how can you be adamant in one sphere, which is clearly potentially wrong just on the facts before us? Do you see my point?
MR VISSER: Can I just mention on other aspect? This Madondo involved with Black Power operations in '76 could perhaps at a later stage have received military training, but I was not aware of that, that's why I'm saying that this man that I had to do with, Scorpion, is not identical to the Madondo that I knew as primarily a Black Power member. That's what I'm trying to say. If the name were mentioned to me, despite my bad memory, I might have been able to put the two together.
MR LAX: All I'm suggesting to you is, is the possibility no there that you're making a mistake and it's the same person, but because of the lapse of time from 1976 to 1980 and then from 1980 to now, you just haven't connected them all properly?
MR VISSER: That is a possibility I suppose, Mr Chairperson, that I am mistaken.
MS SAMUEL: The decision to in fact eliminate this person by the name of Scorpion or Ronald Madondo, did that decision come specifically from Brig Goosen or were both of you involved in that decision?
MR VISSER: It came from Brig Goosen.
ADV SANDI: But before Mr Goosen said the deceased should be eliminated in the light of the circumstances and information you had set out to him, did you initially suggest to him that because of the problem you had the deceased had to be killed?
MR VISSER: I wrote the report and explained to him the dangers of this man for us and the instruction to remove the man then came from him.
ADV SANDI: Thank you.
MS SAMUEL: Were any methods discussed as to how this man was to be eliminated?
MR VISSER: No, I discussed no methods.
MS SAMUEL: So did you then take it upon yourself that the manner in which he should be eliminated would be as described by the other applicants here?
MR VISSER: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
MS SAMUEL: I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS SAMUEL
CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?
MR LAX: Can I just ...
MS VAN DER WALT: No questions.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT
MR LAX: Colonel Visser, if one - sorry, Brigadier Visser, if one looks at page 130, that Oupa Madondo was being held at Jabulani Police cells in terms of Section 6(1) of the Terrorism Act. Do you see that?
MR VISSER: Yes, I see it, Chairperson.
MR LAX: And therefore he would have come to your attention as Security Branch Head.
MR VISSER: Yes, he ought to have if my staff detained him.
MR LAX: And this Oupa Madondo left the country in 1978 and then came back in June '79, was arrested in Soweto and then there's a long story here, but it all vaguely ties in with the same person then referred to in inquiry that follows on page 132 onwards. You can see that's a printout from your computer records, or what would have been Security Branch computer records. So this man was arrested in Soweto, therefore you would have known about him.
MR VISSER: I'm not clear on this, when was this printout made, Chairperson?
MR LAX: Page 130. If you look at the letter, this is permission to continue holding him in terms of Section 6 of the then Terrorism Act, and it's just an explanation of his activities.
CHAIRPERSON: Can we just look at that letter. It's a letter written and signed on behalf of Brig du Preez. Where was du Preez?
MR VISSER: He was at the head office.
CHAIRPERSON: And it's a letter that was sent back?
MR VISSER: No.
CHAIRPERSON: It is to the Commissioner of Police in Pretoria.
MR VISSER: That's correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: All they refer to here is that he was detained at the Jabulani Police cells.
MR VISSER: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And at the top it refers to Lt Hawkins, was he on your staff?
MR VISSER: He was also at head office, stationed at head office.
CHAIRPERSON: So this was correspondence between Security Head Office and the Commissioner of Police.
MR VISSER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But it refers also to the fact that he was detained at the Jabulani Police cells. Where are those cells?
MR VISSER: In Soweto, one of the suburbs of Soweto.
CHAIRPERSON: Did that fall under you?
MR VISSER: Soweto control area was in my control area, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Would you have known of everyone detained there?
MR VISSER: In general I did yes, but some people were detained at John Vorster and then I would not always know about them.
CHAIRPERSON: In this letter they say that arising from his arrest another four people were arrested. They also allege that Madondo transported five people in Soweto and that he later declared that those people had undergone military training with him. In June '78 he was found possession of a Makarov pistol. In the light of the aforegoing and the fact that he could not give a satisfactory explanation of his movements the previous few years, the suspicion exists that he is a trained ANC terrorist who has much information on activities. Then there is a request that he should kept in further detention. It was sent by Security Head Office to the Commissioner. Were you aware, or can you not remember, or do you not know of this detention in 1979?
MR VISSER: I am not aware of this, this is the first time that I've seen this letter, but it is possible that he may have been detained, that it might have happened.
CHAIRPERSON: If that is the case, then it is possible that the person that you later got to know as Scorpion, could possibly be this person and who received training in the meantime.
MR VISSER: Sir, I can still not put the two together. As I have already said, Scorpion that I had to do with was via Western Transvaal, he was arrested in Western Transvaal and then handed to me for interrogation because he went from Soweto to the Western Transvaal.
CHAIRPERSON: But why can't it be the same person?
MR VISSER: I can't explain that.
CHAIRPERSON: Because the original person that you knew also came from Soweto.
MR VISSER: Yes, he did.
MR LAX: You see unless you can give us some reason why your distinction in your mind is so clear, then how do we rely on that feeling that you have that it's just different?
MR VISSER: It's just a feeling that I have, Chairperson, that the one person is not identical to the other one, according to my memory, and I cannot explain it. ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR LAX: No, I hear you. Thanks, Chair.
I just have one question that was puzzling me. Was it usual for van Rooyen to come to your house to discuss something like this, why didn't he discuss it with you at the office?
MR VISSER: They could contact me at home if something happened after hours and if it were essential to talk to me.
MR LAX: And you don't remember how you addressed this man during the 12 to 14 hours he spent in your company from Klerkskraal, to the time he was killed?
MR VISSER: I can't remember calling him by any name, I just spoke to him as a person sitting behind me in the vehicle, I didn't call him a specific name.
MR LAX: And you certainly wanted to give him the impression that everything was normal between you.
MR VISSER: Yes, that's how I handled it, so that there would be no problems to expect.
MR LAX: How long had you had him at Klerkskraal?
MR VISSER: I think a night and a day. He was detained the previous evening and released the following afternoon, less than 24 hours in all I think.
MR LAX: And you can't explain why you decided not to prosecute him as opposed to holding him.
MR VISSER: I cannot explain that at this point, Chairperson.
MR LAX: Now if this was the same man and if it was the person who lay charges against your staff, surely one way of dealing with that was just to get rid of him, if this was going to be a very embarrassing thing for you.
MR VISSER: No, I would not have acted in such a way. There had been complaints against my personnel by others before that and it was handled and investigated in the normal way, taking the necessary steps. I have never removed people to get rid of their complaints.
MR LAX: You see what is clear from these papers is that Oupa Madondo, the one who did lay charges, did disappear, his family have never seen him to this day.
MR VISSER: I cannot explain that, Chairperson.
MR LAX: You don't know of any other Oupa Madondo who went missing from your area, who was a trained MK guerrilla from your area who disappeared, who never was seen again?
MR VISSER: I know only this one that I have mentioned before, that's the only one I know.
MR LAX: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: May I just please clear something up with regard to what the Committee has asked? Thank you.
You were asked just now why you didn't arrest and prosecute him. In view of that time, if he were now to be prosecuted and kept in detention and prosecuted - I'm not referring to Section 6 now, then his family would freely be allowed access to him, not so?
MR VISSER: Yes, it is.
MS VAN DER WALT: And if he were visited by people in jail, is it possible that information that he could have given them could have gone through to the ANC or not?
MR VISSER: Yes, it is possible.
MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: I see that on page 122 and 123, on 123 the date appears as 20 September '79, that deals with the assault on this person and on page 122, the date is not quite clear, but in that same - it looks like the same month, it also looks like September '79, there's a letter that says that he made a satisfactory statement and that he is released, recommended to be released.
MR VISSER: May I look at them?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR VISSER: These letters were written by head office, Security Headquarters. Starbuck(?) was at Security Headquarters, du Preez and the other one, Col Gloy(?) was also at Security Headquarters. ...(transcriber's interpretation)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Who would have written to head office that this person had made a satisfactory statement and recommended that he be released? Who would have done that?
MR VISSER: I believe it might have been the branch detaining him originally, or made a submission recommending a number 94 for presentation to the ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: You see it seems as if he then must have been interrogated by people from head office, such as du Preez, because du Preez is now asking for him to be released seeing that he had given a satisfactory statement.
MR VISSER: I don't think head office would have done the interrogation, head office must have had some or other letter before this before they would ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Now this person might have been Starbuck. MR VISSER: Starbuck was also at head office and head office didn't do interrogations apparently.
MR LAX: You see this letter looks like it's from one part of headquarters, i.e. Security Branch Headquarters, to the Commissioner's office. In other words, you have Security Branch HQ communicating with the Commissioner's office, which is a separate office. And the question is, obviously at station level or at district level, you have somebody else who is actually compiling all these reports on detainees and on people, whether they're answering questions satisfactorily or not, because that was really the criterion around which people could be held, and once those reports are then sent, HQ on the one side, in its right-hand being the Security Branch, then speaks to the left-hand, being the Commissioner and they record all this information in writing. Is that correct?
MR VISSER: Ja, Security Headquarters does liaise with the 94, the Commissioner of the South African Police, in the light of reports which he receives from various departments, Chairperson. That is correct, liaison does take place. They are in the same building, but it was two compartments of the South African Police. ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR LAX: What would this reference number which is consistently throughout be, 140/79? Oupa Madondo has got in brackets behind his name (140/79). If you look at all the correspondence, the same number appears next to his name.
MR VISSER: That would be a detention number and so on, which is allocated to him.
MR LAX: In whose records though? Would that be in the Security Branch Headquarters records or would it be ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: It would be in the Security Headquarters records.
CHAIRPERSON: On page 122 it is said
"Oupa Ronald Madondo (140/97) John Vorster Square Police cells."
So at that point he was detained at John Vorster.
MR VISSER: It would appear to be so, according to the letters, Chairperson.
MR LAX: If one looks then - just to confuse this even more, at page 124, which is the report from the magistrate, you see that he was being held at Jabulani at that stage, and he'd already been there for the whole month. He was detained on the 13th of August, this is on the 28th of August that he is seen by the magistrate and at that stage he complains of assaults on him and so on and it's as a result of those complaints that a prosecution is then investigated.
MR VISSER: I am not aware of these complaints or detentions.
MR LAX: This chap that's referred to here in this thing, Grobbelaar - just let me make sure I've got the right name, ja, Grobbelaar, who was Grobbelaar, did he work under you?
MR VISSER: Yes, at that stage there was a Grobbelaar who worked at the Security Branch in Soweto.
MR LAX: Page 128 he says
"At Protea, Lt Grobbelaar asked me why I complained ..."
... and then down below there's another name, van Vuuren. Was van Vuuren also under you?
MR VISSER: There was a van Vuuren at a stage, I don't know if he was there at that stage, but there was a van Vuuren attached to the Security Branch at some stage, Chairperson.
MR LAX: So these were people under your command, not under John Vorster Square, if they were the people who were questioning him.
MR VISSER: There were people attached to Security Branch, yes.
MR LAX: Yes. And they were the ones questioning him.
CHAIRPERSON: No, van Vuuren called for a doctor. He complained ...
MR LAX: All he says was that he'll telephone for a doctor, but the doctor never came.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR LAX: The point I'm making is, these are your subordinates, these are not John Vorster Square subordinates. So this must have been under your purview and yet you have no recollection whatsoever. Which is not surprising, bearing in mind how long ago it is.
MR VISSER: It is possible that these things did take place and that I don't recall the names, Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Visser, you are excused and it seems as if we will adjourn for the day. Can we please start at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
MR PRINSLOO: I would just like to mention that I have been requested to be in Pretoria tomorrow and that Louisa will take over my part if possible.
CHAIRPERSON: If your client agrees, then that is fine.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chair.
MR BOOYENS: Mr Chair, may I also please just mention one aspect. There is a lot of dispute that doesn't actually directly relate to us, about this person on the photos, who he really is. The original photos surely must be available, that are clearer. Does the Commission have the original photographs, or where are they?
MR MAPOMA: We don't have them, but I think perhaps Adv Chris MacAdam might give some direction because he was the person who was compiling these reports and unfortunately we have been working on the photocopies. But I will take it upon myself to find out from him if he can assist us with the original copies.
MR LAX: Or maybe his successor, Mr Barnardo might have them.
MR MAPOMA: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: I would just like to place it on record that the Amnesty Committee's Investigation Unit has this one photo, they faxed it. I asked for the original because the fax was even worse and I got no answer from them. We were trying to help, but to this day they did not give us original photographs.
CHAIRPERSON: Could you kindly try and find out whether you could get anything?
MR MAPOMA: Yes, Sir.
MS VAN DER WALT: May Mr Visser then please excused on the same conditions as the other applicants?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: The only thing is if we do get the photos, I don't know whether he'll be able to get them by tomorrow, I don't know. Well, try and see what you can do.
We'll adjourn until tomorrow 9 o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
