CHAIRPERSON: It’s 18 October 1999. We'll proceed with the applications for amnesty of Mr Gold and others. The Panel consists of myself, Chris de Jager, Adv Ntsiki Sandi and Mr Lax.

I would like the representatives to place themselves on record. Mr Wills, could we start with you.

MR WILLS: Yes, thank you, Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members. My names is John Wills, attorney of Pietermaritzburg, I'm acting for Donald Spencer Gold in this matter.

MR BOOYENS: Kobus Booyens, instructed by Strydom Britz, on behalf of the applicant Mr van Zyl, Mr Chairman.

MEV VAN DER WALT: "Louisa van der Walt, mnr die Voorsitter. Ek tree op vir die tweede applikant, soos gemerk op die stukke, Schalk Jan Visser.

MNR PRINSLOO: Mnr die Voorsitter, ek verskyn namens Schoon, sowel as Carr. Mnr Carr was Vrydag opgeneem in die hospitaal in Pietermaritzburg, en het 'n operasie ondergaan en sal gevolglik nie hierdie verrigtinge kan bywoon nie. Ek het egter geen beswaar dat die verrigtinge voortgaan nie. Dit is ook so met mnr Carr bespreek en hy het daartoe toegestem, net soos ook met u in kamers bespreek, mnr die Voorsitter.

Mnr die Voorsitter, dan wil ek ook net meld dat ek ook geen beswaar het dat mnr Lax deel vorm van die Komitee nie, in die lig van die feit dat hy deel gevorm het van 'n ondersoek ingevolge Artikel 29, waar mnr Schoon getuig het. Daar is geen beswaar daarteen nie. Dankie, mnr die Voorsitter".

MS SAMUEL: I'm Ms Samuel and I represent the family of the deceased. The deceased's family is not present, so I'd like it to be placed on record that to a large extent I'm going to be hampered with regard to cross-examination as I do not have firm instructions from her in that respect. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will for sure allow you ample time to consult if she turns up, if you haven't consulted yet and we'll allow you to cross-examine. You need not start, or you could start if you want to, but you could reserve cross-examination if you want to.

MS SAMUEL: Thank you.

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, my name is Zuko Mapoma, I'm the Evidence Leader. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: As far as Mr Carr's application is concerned, that will be postponed sine die. We'll proceed with the other applications and we'll complete it as far as possible. If at a later stage Mr Carr would give evidence and if you would require it, a copy of his evidence would be made available to any of the representatives, so that they could amplify their arguments in this case.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Chairperson. Mr Chairperson, the applicants have agreed among themselves that Mr van Zyl will testify first.

MR WILLS: Sorry, Mr Chairman, just one point before we commence with the actual applications. My instructions are to withdraw those applications in respect of, and I refer the Chairman and the Committee to page 8 of the bundle. We are withdrawing what appears at 4.3 and 4.4, that is the attempted kidnapping of the ANC operative in Swaziland and the crossing from Swaziland into South Africa, without going through a border post.

MR WILLS: ... it's page 8 of the bundle, 4.3 and 4.4.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chair, I call Mr van Zyl.

MR VAN ZYL: Would you like to testify in English or in Afrikaans?

MR VAN ZYL: I understood first that there was no interpreter. I would like to speak Afrikaans please. If questions are put to me in English, I will answer in English.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any problems regarding the interpreter?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, there are no problems now about the interpretation. There was a problem then because the Afrikaans interpreter did not arrive then.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know whether others - if you've got the same problem, there's a lot of noise on our earphones.

EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Thank you, we go ahead.

Mr van Zyl, your amnesty application is from page 65 of the bundle, is that correct?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that is true.

MR BOOYENS: You corroborate the content of pages 65 to 67.

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: You are applying for amnesty for the murder on a man whom you only know as MK Scorpio, is that correct?

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: Maybe "know" is the wrong word, you refer to him as MK Scorpio.

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's right.

MR BOOYENS: You do not know what his true identity is and you never knew and it is correct to say that according to the photo that is here, you can't say whether that is him or not.

MR VAN ZYL: That is true, I can't identify him according to the photos.

MR BOOYENS: The incident for which you apply here is the murder of this person, and according to your memory it was in the second half of 1980, and took place at Josini Dam, or Bolapoort Dam as it was known at that time, in the North of Natal.

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's correct.

MR BOOYENS: On page 68 of the application you set out that in 1980 you were a Branch Commander of the Security Forces in Ladysmith, Natal. Is that correct?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, it is.

MR BOOYENS: The applicant, Col Schalk Visser of the time, did you know each other?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chair, we had dealings with each other because of our work at various occasions. We were both involved in intelligence collection operations in neighbouring States, especially Swaziland, and because much of the information that I gathered, applied to the Witwatersrand and vice versa, we had a lot of dealings with each other from time to time.

MR BOOYENS: You had also known each other before in your careers in the Security Branch, although he was a more senior than you. So you had known each other for a long time, is that correct?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: How would you describe the relationship between you and Col Visser?

MR VAN ZYL: Col Visser was a very respected officer in the Security Branch, and I specifically have felt the same about him, I respected him as a person of integrity, because I believed that, and I'd heard that he was a person who led from the front instead of sitting behind a desk sending people out just to work.

MR BOOYENS: Were you satisfied that Col Visser was the type of man who - you said that had integrity, that if he sent a request your way, you could rely on it, that is was reliable information that he was reacting on?

MR VAN ZYL: Absolutely.

MR BOOYENS: During the second half of 1980, Col Visser phoned you at Ladysmith one day and asked you to come Johannesburg, is that correct?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, it's correct.

MR BOOYENS: During the telephone call did he give you any detail as to what he wanted to talk to you about in Johannesburg?

MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chair, he just indicated that it was very urgent and that it was a delicate matter that he wanted to discuss with me urgently, personally.

MR BOOYENS: So that same day you went to Johannesburg, is that right?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: About how long after the call?

MR VAN ZYL: I remember that I left within the hour.

MR BOOYENS: So you would have for instance, you would more-or-less have been in Johannesburg about three hours later.

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: In Johannesburg, upon arrival where did you go? Did you go to his office or to his house?

MR VAN ZYL: We met at his house, Mr Chair.

MR BOOYENS: Were only you and Col Visser there?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Please tell the Committee, Mr van Zyl, in essence what was discussed between yourself and Col Visser.

MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chair, Col Visser told me that an impimpi from the Soweto Security Branch, who was a trained ANC member and who had been arrested and who at that stage had changed his mantel to the wind and worked for the branch as an agent, that they had good information that he was acting as a double agent and had started operating again for the MK and that that endangered the lives of his handler as well other Security Force members in the sense that it threatened the operation, the intelligence operation, and it was necessary to act against him immediately. And that he had received orders from HQ to eliminate the person, to make him disappear and that it had to happen very quickly.

MR BOOYENS: It was not possible for you at that stage to know whether the intelligence that he was relying on was true or not, or to verify it or to investigate it. is that correct?

MR VAN ZYL: I was a junior officer, I was a Lieutenant at the time and as I said, Col Visser was a senior members and a person whom I respected absolutely and I had no reason to doubt his word. It was also very clear that he was very serious.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he a Colonel already then?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: Did you have any reason to doubt the correctness of what he was saying to you?

MR VAN ZYL: No, Sir.

MR LAX: Can I just ask something, sorry. Mr Booyens, sorry.

Even if you did question his motives or his judgements, you wouldn't have asked him or you wouldn't have done anything about it surely, as a junior office.

MR VAN ZYL: Sir, if it had been somebody else and if it had been an officer that I did not have the respect for that I did in this case, then I might have found some sort of excuse to get out of it, but in this case I respected the officer in this regard and as I was a very motivate person at that time as well and seeing that it was him, I had no reason to doubt him, no.

MR LAX: To doubt. If I may just say, you're welcome to speak Afrikaans, I'm quite fluent in Afrikaans, I just struggle with speaking Afrikaans from time to time, but I am fluent in it.

MR VAN ZYL: Thank you.

MR BOOYENS: He said the order came from HQ, did he name any people at head office?

MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chair, not at that stage.

MR BOOYENS: It would not have been customary for a senior officer to give the name of another senior at HQ to a junior, so there was nothing strange about that?

MR VAN ZYL: Quite correct.

MR BOOYENS: Later in the application the name of Col Piet Goosen was mentioned and later you heard that he had been involved, did you know him?

MR VAN ZYL: I had met him at that stage, yes. I knew him as well, of him.

MR BOOYENS: I think he was a Brigadier at that stage?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Brig Goosen was the head of the Intelligence or possibly Second in Command, but he was a very senior member of the Intelligence Branch of the Security Force. That's true.

MR BOOYENS: After the conversation between you and Col Visser about the problem that he had with this MK person, was there then a conversation between the two of you as to how to fulfil the command of Head Office?

MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. It was clear that the person would have to be killed. It also came out clearly that he had to disappear totally. I can't remember whether it was I, myself, but we decided that we would make use of explosives to get rid of the person's corpse. I did not know the rural areas in Transvaal at that stage, didn't know about a place that was deserted enough, where one could try and do this and I suggested that the only place that I knew of that was remote enough and suitable, was the Northern Natal area known as Zululand.

MR BOOYENS: You made the statement just now and I just want to make clear, you said it was clear that the person had to disappear, was that the instruction that you were given, that the person had to disappear?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's the way I remember it, Mr Chair.

MR BOOYENS: You then mentioned to him the possibility and was he open to this idea that you used Zululand, (a) Zululand and (b) explosives?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, he was.

MR BOOYENS: You, at that stage Mr van Zyl, you knew the Zululand area quite well?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's true.

MR BOOYENS: At some or other stage you realised that you needed an explosives expert, is that right?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: At some or other stage you called Sgt Donald Gold, is that right?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Let's just look at the history with Mr Gold. You knew each other at the Security Branch Pietermaritzburg, is that right?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: In those days he was a Sergeant and you were a Warrant-Officer?

MR VAN ZYL: That's right. I arrived in Pietermaritzburg May or June 76 and I met Sgt. Gold the next year, got to know him the next year, when he came to Pietermaritzburg more often and eventually was stationed at the branch himself.

MR BOOYENS: Did you, after you left Pietermaritzburg when you were at Ladysmith, did you still have regular contact with Sgt Gold?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes. Sgt Gold was the explosives expert and the Inspector for the whole area. He travelled quite a lot and gave lectures for institutions and schools in respect of preparedness and terrorism, as well as was also involved in arms exhibitions. He was a very popular person for that type of speech.

MR BOOYENS: So let us call it counter propaganda on behalf of the Security Police/Government for what was known at that time as the terrorist attacks against South Africa?

MR VAN ZYL: I didn't see it as counter propaganda, I saw it as an effort to inform people and to keep them prepared for the real threats from time to time they would be faced with.

MR BOOYENS: What was your relationship with Sgt Gold?

MR VAN ZYL: I thought we were good friends, I think.

MR BOOYENS: Did you trust Sgt Gold?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I did.

MR BOOYENS: And so you phoned him to help you?

MR VAN ZYL: That's right.

MR BOOYENS: Mr van Zyl, I know it's almost 20 years ago, but in other words you would not have naturally, not have told him to come to Zululand and to come and explode a corpse, is that correct?

MR VAN ZYL: That's right.

MR BOOYENS: But you did insinuate or give him symbolic images to tell him that he had to blow up something?

MR VAN ZYL: I can't remember my exact words or the exact images and symbols I used, it was a between-the-lines conversation. I tried to explain to him that it was a very delicate operation and that he had to bring along the explosive and that that would be the purpose of his presence during the operation.

MR BOOYENS: Mr van Zyl, one can use explosives for a bridge or a person to be exploded, to be blown up. Did you try and give him an indication, more or less, what the scope of the operation would have been, for instance if he needed to blow up a bridge, he would have needed a lot of explosives, maybe 5 ton.

MR VAN ZYL: I can't remember Mr Chair. I would guess that I would have given him some suggestion that it was not as big a job as a bridge.

MR BOOYENS: What was your arrangement with Mr Gold? Where would you meet and when?

MR VAN ZYL: As far as I can recall, he would meet me the next morning early and I judged that I would be driving through the night to fetch the deceased and to transport him to Zululand.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Gold says that you met at Mbazwana, what do you say about that?

MR VAN ZYL: It's a long time, Mr Chair. In this case I think Mr Gold is mistaken, Mbazwana does not ring a bell with me at all concerning this operation. I can remember specifically that we were at Pongola, we had coffee, I imagine that Brig Visser had a flask of coffee with him and we drank coffee, which we shared with the deceased and I remember it as Pongola.

MR BOOYENS: Geographically, for the record, Mbazwana is at the coast, is that true?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's correct. It is close to Sodwana Bay. At that stage the road between Mbombo and Mbazwana was in a very poor condition, so I can't imagine that we would have been able to get to Mbazwana with my car, but it is a long time ago.

MR BOOYENS: If you say your car, do you mean a conventional car, not a four-wheel drive?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's what I now say. My car was a Ford 3 Litre, a Cortina. It was low, close to the ground. I don't know if I would have been able to get to Mbazwana at that stage. I can't remember ever being at Mbazwana with that specific vehicle.

MR BOOYENS: The arrangement was now that Mr Gold had to meet you at Pongola and then you and Col Visser, page 69, you went to a rural town and fetched the deceased, is that correct?

MR VAN ZYL: Col Visser, when I spoke to him later he said it was a place between Ventersdorp and Klerksdorp with the name of Klerkskraal.

MR BOOYENS: So that was in the Western Transvaal?

MR VAN ZYL: That's right, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: But you only heard that later? When you did your application, you couldn't remember the place but it was in the Transvaal rural area?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: You fetched the man at Klerkskraal. Where was that?

MR VAN ZYL: I can't remember whether it was at a house or at an office or perhaps at a police station. I remained seated in the car and Col Visser went and fetched the person. They came back and the person sat in the back of the car and Col Visser sat in the front. The person had no handcuffs and he was calm and had not been forced to come with us.

MR BOOYENS: In other words, he was not treated like a prisoner?

MR VAN ZYL: No. The conversation between them was like those between a handler and an agent.

MR BOOYENS: And then you left for Northern Natal?

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct, it was late afternoon, the sun was setting.

MR BOOYENS: You drove through the night and early in the morning reached Pongola?

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct. I can't remember exactly, it could have been about 4 o'clock, perhaps earlier, when we reached Pongola.

MR BOOYENS: And Mr Gold, according to your recollection, you met him there?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: You told me it's difficult to remember precise detail, but from Pongola, as you remember, tell the Committee what were your movements then?

MR VAN ZYL: I remember that we went to Josini Security Branch where we met Gert Schoon. W/O Schoon, I had contacted him but I can't remember whether it was the day before from Jo'burg or that morning from Pongola, however, we did meet with him and I recall that it was close to or at the Security Branch at Josini.

MR BOOYENS: Josini and Pongola are how far from each other?

MR VAN ZYL: 35 to 40 kilometres more or less, yes.

MR BOOYENS: At some or other stage the operation was explained to Mr Schoon as well as the motivation for it, is that correct?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, either myself or Col Visser explained to Mr Schoon, I can't remember, but I explained to him how serious it was, how urgent it was and the fact that we were looking urgently for a place to finalise the operation and that I could only think of their area. Mr Schoon was a bit surprised, possibly. He told me that he would get hold of Sgt Des Carr at that time, I can't remember whether that was Josini or Mbazwana, because he was stationed at Mbazwana at that stage and he would have heard whether Karel could perhaps help us. The only place that he could think of that was remote and suitable enough, was at an old farmhouse close to the Josini Dam, almost on the banks of the dam, the Josini dam, close to the Pongola camp and that the destruction of the corpse could hopefully take place there. We knew that the corpse was eventually exploded on an island in the dam.

MR BOOYENS: How did the island come into it?

MR VAN ZYL: It was also I think from Mr Schoon because he knew the area better than we did. I think that he suggested that the island, because it was in the middle of the dam and the dam covered a large surface, that the island was perhaps remote and suitable for the operation.

MR BOOYENS: Would arrangements be made for a boat then?

MR VAN ZYL: I don't remember whether the boat had been arranged at that stage already or whether we all first went to the farm house. I can remember that we did arrive at the farm house and that we waited there for Mr Schoon to return with the boat. Brig Visser, at that stage, was waiting close to the dam as far as I know, for Mr Schoon to return with the boat and at the house it was just me and Sgt Gold and the deceased and my recollection is that Sgt Carr arrived a little bit later.

MR BOOYENS: So in any case before you could start with your side of the operation, the boat would have had to be there otherwise you'd have been stuck with a person who had been killed and no boat.

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct, yes, though I can't remember how we communicated about the boat.

MR BOOYENS: How far is the farmhouse from the side of the dam, the water?

MR VAN ZYL: A couple of hundred metres, depending on how high the water was because just before, I had stayed before in the house doing an observation on the Swaziland border between Piet Retief and Pongola and the country borders go directly along the national road and it was known that the ANC made use of that point to bring terrorists and logistics into the country and that point was, at that stage, under observation for quite a while and then we also stayed in that house. My recollection is that that house was about 200/250 metres from the water.

MR BOOYENS: While you were waiting, where was Scorpion at that point?

MR VAN ZYL: He was, I can't remember for all of the time, but he lay under a tree right in front of the house and was asleep at some stage.

MR BOOYENS: The possibility was mentioned, some of the people mentioned it as a fact that this man was given drugs. Do you know something about this?

MR VAN ZYL: No, I have no knowledge of that.

MR BOOYENS: You yourself did not have drugs with you, is that correct?

MR VAN ZYL: No, I didn't.

MR BOOYENS: And you yourself didn't give him drugs?

MR VAN ZYL: No, I didn't.

MR BOOYENS: And he was constantly in your presence and in Col Visser's presence?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: You drove through the night, is that correct?

MR VAN ZYL: My inference was that the person was tired. I myself was also tired. He also slept in the car and with the waiting, he wasn't involved in any of the conversation, so he just went and lay down under the tree and slept.

MR BOOYENS: Mr van Zyl, Mr Des Carr arrived a bit later, is that correct?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Then they decided to go ahead with the elimination of MK Scorpion, is that right?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Please tell the Commission shortly, briefly what happened there.

MR VAN ZYL: I can't remember whether I - I recall that I got the firearm from Sgt Gold at some or other stage, perhaps just before, perhaps at that point. It was a hand machine carbine with a silencer and this was handed by me to Des Carr. I don't remember that we said anything. I can't remember anything being said. Mr Des Carr went and kneeled about a metre or two away from the deceased and shot him. At that point I was about 5 metres behind him and Sgt Gold, I don't know where he was at that point. Sgt Carr pulled the trigger, after which the deceased jumped upright suddenly. I can't remember whether Sgt Carr jumped out of way, but the deceased charged in my direction. I took my pistol from the holster and shot him through the head.

MR BOOYENS: Can you remember how many shots?

MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember, Mr Chair.

MR BOOYENS: So the deceased died there, probably died there?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Did you and Mr Carr and Mr Sgt Gold then cover the corpse of the deceased in a piece of canvass?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes. Sgt Gold then got to the scene and we took a piece of canvass that Sgt Carr provided. We took it out. We rolled him up in that. We placed him in the back of the Landrover. Sgt Des Carr's Landrover. The blood we covered with sand. I think that's how it happened.

MR BOOYENS: And did you then drive off to the water side?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, to the point where Col Visser and Mr Schoon were waiting with the boat.

MR BOOYENS: Did Mr Gold take you, follow you in his own car?

MR VAN ZYL: That's the way I remember it, yes.

MR BOOYENS: Were you all with the body and the explosives then on the boat?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Then you went to the island?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: And at the island the corpse was unloaded?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's correct.

MR BOOYENS: And you took it to the middle of the island?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's right.

MR BOOYENS: You and Mr Gold packed explosives around.

MR VAN ZYL: I recall that we put it on top of the body.

MR BOOYENS: At that point you were, you had not done your explosives course, is that right?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: The explosives were then detonated, is that correct?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: You say in paragraph 6 on page 70 that you recall that there was then a second explosion because he had not been totally destroyed.

MR VAN ZYL: That's the way I remember it. Apparently I'm the only one who remembers it this way. That remains to be my memory, that we had a second load of explosives but it is a long time ago and I remember very vaguely.

MR BOOYENS: So you have now already referred, Mr Gold says there was only one explosion. Some of the other members also say that they heard only one explosion, saw only one explosion. Is it possible? You say that you recall two explosions. What are you trying to tell us with your statement that it's a long time ago?

MR VAN ZYL: When I made the statement, I had not read any of the other statements. I tried to write it as through the years I could remember it. Even now when I think back, it seems to me as if there were two explosions, but I must admit that when I read Sgt Gold's statement, as well as some of the others, of course I began doubting myself. It is something that I really cannot remember above other things. I can remember that it was me who shot the person and not someone else, and more or less what the circumstances were when that happened, but the destruction of the corpse is a very more vague image to me and it is something that I really don't want to remember.

MR BOOYENS: Is my inference correct that it is possible that the second explosion might be a mistake on your part, although you personally remember two explosions?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that is possible.

MR BOOYENS: Then after that, in any case after the explosion, the body had been totally destroyed and then you left the island?

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: And you went back, you and Col Visser went back to Jo'burg, is that correct?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: This situation regarding - no sorry we did that already. Mr van Zyl, you have already touched upon the fact that you, at that point, were a very loyal Security Force member and that you trusted Col Visser and when they told you that there were instructions from Head Office, a request that you must help him with this assignment and he told you, he explained to you that this person was a double agent, did you regard this as a necessary part of the struggle at the time?

MR VAN ZYL: I don't know, Mr Chair, it was the first time that I partook in such an incident and it has always been against my principles and yet I felt that it was the only way under certain circumstances and that at that stage I felt that it was warranted, justified.

MR BOOYENS: Your broader political purposes, objectives you spoke about on page 71 and 72, is that correct?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: And do you corroborate these, as you wrote it?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I do.

MR BOOYENS: I would like to refer you to page 72 at the top, paragraph (b) where you say that the target had been a trained terrorist who'd been sent out of the country to commit acts of terrorism and that he had to be prevented from carrying on with this. Is that based on the fact that the information given to you, this is based on information given to you, not information that you yourself gathered, is that correct?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: It's also based on the fact that he had training to commit acts of terrorism, not necessarily implies that he had at that stage committed such acts already. You refer specifically to the fact that he could continue with acts of terrorism as if that implies, yes, that he had already committed acts of terrorism, but that's not what you wanted to say, you wanted to say that if he went back to the opposition he could have continued with his initial purpose, is that correct?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's more correct.

MR BOOYENS: What was said to you was an instruction that the man had to be killed and were you also satisfied that under the circumstances or on the information that was given to you, that this was the only option?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Although it was not your decision, this way or the other?

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: So you did not take the decision, that decision was taken for you? You were appropriated operationally?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, it is correct, but I take full responsibility for what I did.

MR BOOYENS: So you confirm your amnesty application and do you ask for amnesty for your share of the murder of the person you knew as Scorpion, is that correct?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's correct, Mr Chair.

MR BOOYENS: Also for any other misdemeanour regarding explosives that may have related thereto?

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct, Mr Chair.

MR BOOYENS: As well as any other misdemeanours in connection with the destruction of the corpse related to that matter?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's correct.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chair, that is the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wills.

MR WILLS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WILLS: Mr van Zyl, you say it was you who contacted Mr Gold by telephone?

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR WILLS: So in other words, it was directly as a result ...(end of tape) to him a junior officer, that he must assist in this operation. Would you agree that this was an order?

MR VAN ZYL: That's affirmative.

MR WILLS: So in other words, he had no choice in the matter, if he was to obey his orders?

MR VAN ZYL: Of course, no such order is a legitimate order, Mr Chairman, but the conditions at the time were such that in fact Mr Gold had very little choice and I would not have approached him if I did not at that time feel that he would go along with it.

MR WILLS: Yes. Now it obviously wouldn't be common practice for you to have described explicitly what this operation was going to be over the telephone, because that wouldn't have been a secure and confidential means of communication for an operation such as this?

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.

MR WILLS: So it is likely that the exact details of this operation wouldn't have been communicated over the telephone?

MR VAN ZYL: Not the exact details, no Mr Chairman.

MR WILLS: Yes. Now I've consulted with my client and whilst his memory is that the order was to go to Mbazwana, he's not going to take issue whether that was Mbazwana or Pongola, the fact of the matter is that you met at some police station and you continued with the operation. My client is of the view that when he first saw the person who was pointed out to him as being a double agent, that this person appeared to be sedated. You've commented that as far as you're concerned, you didn't give him any drugs. How did he appear to you the morning at the police station, at you say the Pongola police station?

MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember if he left the car, Mr Chairman. I can remember that he was sleeping in the car at one time during the journey and as was said, the next thing that I can, the recollection of the deceased was at this house where he was lying sleeping under the tree. My view was, as I said earlier that thinking back, that he was probably as tired as I was.

MR BOOYENS: Now at the actual scene where the deceased was killed, there appears to be no dispute between your client's version and my client's version that he wasn't involved in the actual murder.

MR VAN ZYL: He was not involved, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: Yes. In fact my client informs me that there was a bit of a joke about him not being involved, that he was scrimmaging around in the back of his car because he was, it was seen that he avoided that actual murder, can you recall anything to that effect?

MR VAN ZYL: I cannot recall that we ever discussed this, Mr Chairman. Incidents like these were very uncomfortable occasions and I never, as far as I can remember, discussed details about any of these incidents that I had been involved in afterwards. I can remember that I deliberately tried to avoid any discussions around this.

MR WILLS: I think your counsel has dealt with the issue of the number of explosives. My client is adamant that there was in fact only one explosive, but you don't necessarily dispute that, that one explosion to destroy the body?

MR VAN ZYL: I have already indicated that I have doubts Mr Chairman and that I will concede that.

MR WILLS: Now, is it so that and I'm referring to page 19 of the bundle, that after this operation, in paragraph 44, after this operation my client, in fact he was a Warrant Officer at the time, Warrant/Officer Gold, was waiting with Col Visser for you to report that all was clear and at that point he gave you the unused exploder and the cables, can you recall anything to that effect?

MR VAN ZYL: I cannot, Mr Chairman, I wouldn't dispute that.

MR WILLS: Sorry, Mr Chairman, if you could just bear with me.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. Page 90 paragraph 44?

MR WILLS: Paragraph 44. Sorry, Mr Chairman, I must withdraw that, that was that shot, I've just had instructions, actually given allegedly to Mr Schoon, so I must withdraw that.

But the point that I'm wanting to make is that this was in fact the only operation, as far as you know, that Mr Gold was ever involved in of this nature?

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR WILLS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr van Zyl, as far as the question is concerned that was asked to you, the person Scorpion, that he might have been sedated, I would like to put it to you that at the time that he was transported from Klerkskraal to where he was eventually killed, he was treated as if he was still an agent of the police. He had no handcuffs etc so there was no reason to give him sedation. That is what Col Visser will say.

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that is correct. The person was calm and at ease and he and Col Visser spoke about matters that I didn't know about and people that I didn't know about. I can't remember their conversations but he was not in handcuffs and he seemed quite relaxed, as far as I'm concerned.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you said in your evidence in chief also, but you are now under cross-examination, you didn't say it again, but is it correct that when you stopped at Pongola that you gave him coffee, where he also had coffee with you?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Is that correct?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's how I remember it. The flask that Col Visser brought along, he shared coffee with us.

MS VAN DER WALT: And he seemed normal?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, he did.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you. No further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr van Zyl between you and Mr Schoon, your co-applicant, did you trust each other?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, we did.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Des Carr, the applicant, did you know him well?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I knew him not as long as Mr Schoon, but I know that he was considered to be a very steady, solid kind of a person and that's why I accepted when Mr Schoon introduced him to me, to help us.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr van Zyl, as you know today, Mr Schoon - Mr Carr is in hospital at the moment. He has undergone an operation and according to his application he says that you informed him that the person who was to be executed there, was a double agent and a traitor.

MR VAN ZYL: I can't remember, but it's probably true, yes, because I knew him and Col Visser didn't know him as well, so it was probably me who told him, who gave him the information.

MR PRINSLOO: Then according to his application, it appears that he says he was 10 to 15 metres away from the person, on page 55 of his application. You say you were closer?

I don't want to make a difference, that's just a dispute, that's just what he says. I'll take that point up with him, I don't think anything will turn around it.

MR VAN ZYL: When I read it in his statement, I wondered whether it didn't mean 1.0 or 1.5 but that also shows how one's image of something can change over 15 or 20 years. My recollection remains that he kneeled near to the person and that he was very much closer.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chair, no more questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Samuel would you be in a position to proceed? Are your clients present at the moment?

MS SAMUEL: Mr Chairman, client is not present at the moment. I would like to reserve my cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I would also like to hear the version of the victim first.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, with respect, how long is this cross-examination going to stand down? I understand my learned friend's predicament, but with all due respect, Mr van Zyl did not deviate in any respect from his application. My learned friend had an opportunity to consult beforehand and the only reason why I'm asking this, Mr Chairman, I do not think we should unnecessarily delay and have all the applicants first testifying and then have the representative, the Evidence Leader and the representative of the family. The Evidence Leader's position I can fully understand, he must listen to both sides of the story before he can make up his mind. As far as my learned friend is concerned ...

CHAIRPERSON: I propose that we take a short adjournment now and try and find out what's the position about Ms Samuel's clients. We'll adjourn until ...

ON RESUMPTION:

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Samuel, did you have an opportunity to consult?

MS SAMUEL: I have consulted and I do have a few questions to ask.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, before my learned friend on behalf of the family starts, I would just like, with the permission of the Commission, to hear whether the family oppose Mr van Zyl's application for amnesty and if so, on what grounds? I think I'm entitled to hear that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Could you please tell us what is the position? Is the application opposed?

MS SAMUEL: ...(indistinct - mike not on)

MR LAX: Press the button please.

MS SAMUEL: At this stage the family have indicated to me that they are opposing the application for amnesty. The instructions are that according to them, their brother was not killed in action

and that is the reason why amnesty is - there was no reason to in fact kill him and that is the reason why amnesty at this stage is being opposed. There is no, in fact, proper evidence that this man was indeed a double agent.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you kindly refer us to the section on which your position is based?

MR BOOYENS: I've got the Act available for my learned friend, Mr Chairperson.

MS SAMUEL: I've got one, but it's in the car.

CHAIRPERSON: Right. Okay, could you continue? We'll see what ...

MS SAMUEL: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS SAMUEL: Mr van Zyl, you cannot say whether this person, this deceased person, was in fact working as a double agent, is that correct?

MR VAN ZYL: I had no personal knowledge of the fact, Mr Chairman, but I had Col Visser's word for that and at that time that was enough for me.

MS SAMUEL: You cannot even say whether he was in fact an ANC member?

MR VAN ZYL: For the same reason, at the time I believed that he was, because Col Visser assured me that he had been.

MS SAMUEL: Did you ask Col Visser for any further information to satisfy yourself that in fact he was an ANC member or a person operating on both sides?

MR VAN ZYL: Col Visser discussed certain aspects of his fears in connection with this person's actions with me, Mr Chairman. I cannot remember the details of that. I can actually remember that he had stressed the fact that the fact that this person had turned again to the side of the ANC would have endangered the lives of his handler at the time, as well as other members of the branch, as well as the probability that our Intelligence Operation in Swaziland could have been jeopardised.

MS SAMUEL: Did you find out from Col Visser who in fact ...(intervention)

MR VAN ZYL: I beg your pardon, Ma'am?

MS SAMUEL: Did you find out from Col Visser who his handler was?

MR VAN ZYL: Not at the time. I did not know who his handler was, Mr Chairman, I saw that in Col Visser's statement later.

MS SAMUEL: So according to you, you are saying that the possibility was that Col Visser wasn't the handler of this person as well?

MR VAN ZYL: That Col Visser was not the handler?

MS SAMUEL: The handler of this person.

MR VAN ZYL: There is - I think it is a fact that he was not the absolute handler of this person. That this person was actually handled by another member of his branch.

MS SAMUEL: When you say not the absolute handler, what do you mean by that?

MR VAN ZYL: I mean that he was not the sole handler of this agent.

MS SAMUEL: Are you saying that there is more than one person involved in handling him?

MR VAN ZYL: I say that the person, when he was working for the Security Branch Soweto, was handled by a member of the police who was responsible for this agent's movements and actions and that person, normally, would have reported back to Col Visser, that those were the norms at the time, Mr Chairman.

MR SAMUEL: Now you made mention that when you all went to pick up this person, it would appear to you as though Col Visser was the handler, from the conversations.

MR VAN ZYL: No, I did not indicate that, Mr Chairman. I did indicate that it appeared that Mr Visser had certain knowledge of this person's actions while he was a then agent. I would like to rectify it as such please.

MR SAMUEL: Did it appear to you as though Col Visser in fact knew this person personally?

MR VAN ZYL: He definitely knew him personally, Mr Chairman.

MR SAMUEL: When you went to this place by the name of Klerkskraal, you mentioned that you all in fact went to fetch this person. You've actually also pointed out that as far as you are aware, he was not drugged or sedated.

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MS SAMUEL: Can you say whether in fact this place was in fact a police station that you all went to fetch him or whether a house?

MR VAN ZYL: As I said, I cannot recall. I stated specifically in my statement, because I made an attempt to be specific, I cannot remember whether this was an office, a house or in fact a police station, Mr Chairman and it is possible that Col Visser could clear that up for you.

MS SAMUEL: So does it also, is there also a possibility that this person could possibly also have been sedated prior to you being there, or even drugged?

MR VAN ZYL: No, definitely not, Mr Chairman, this was latish afternoon and the person was moving freely and speaking and he was in a relaxed way, he was not sedated at all. He was comfortable in the back seat of the car, speaking to Col Visser about matters that I had no knowledge about, but he was definitely not sedated, Mr Chairman.

MS SAMUEL: Do you know why Mr Gold mentioned then that he was in fact sedated or drugged?

MR VAN ZYL: All I can think of Mr Chairman, is that the person, the next morning when Mr Gold saw him for the first time, was in fact very tired and that is the only reason that I can think of that somebody might have thought that he was sedated, because I didn't sleep that night. I was tired. If he slept, he must have slept fairly fitfully, driving in the back of the car and I assumed that he was tired.

MS SAMUEL: Are you in a position to say who in fact made the decision as to the manner in which this person was to in fact be eliminated?

MR VAN ZYL: Are you talking about eliminated or disposed of?

MS SAMUEL: Disposed of, sorry.

MR VAN ZYL: It was decided by Col Visser and myself and I will take responsibility for the suggestion, Mr Chairman.

MS SAMUEL: So you are saying there was a joint decision?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MS SAMUEL: Why was it necessary for you to become part of this? This incident, this person was working out of the area in which you were stationed completely. Did you not make inquiries as to why you had to become involved in this?

MR VAN ZYL: At the time, Mr Chairman, as I said before, I worked from Ladysmith, which was the branch where I was the Commander. Col Visser was in Soweto, he was the head of the division of Soweto Security Branch and both branches, as well as the Port Natal Branch and the Eastern Transvaal Branch as it was known at that time, handled agents and Intelligence Gathering Networks inside Swaziland. That was necessary because Swaziland was an important jumping-off place for infiltrating cadres, operatives from MK into South Africa to commit deeds that we all know about at that time. We thought that it was necessary to gain as much knowledge from there inside and that included Maputo, Mozambique, as well as Swaziland and for that we needed agents on their side, agents inside Swaziland, that could give us information about movements, about decisions, about vehicles being used and various other things that we had to know to keep track of these personalities.

MS SAMUEL: Did you not make inquiries as to why it was necessary to dispose of this body in the manner as you described, blowing it up?

MR VAN ZYL: I was part of the decision, Mr Chairman. Col Visser stressed to me the fact that the person, that he had instructions that this person had to disappear completely and I could, on that moment, think of no other way to do this than to blow the body up.

MS SAMUEL: Was this the first time that you were involved in operations of this kind, eliminating of persons?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MS SAMUEL: After this incident, did you ever become involved in the elimination of person?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I think ...(intervention)

MR BOOYENS: Relevance Mr Chairman. With respect, I object to that question, especially if it's afterwards, how could it possibly be relevant in judging Mr van Zyl's deeds at the time of this occasion? If it was before there may be, on a stretch, still something relevant but afterwards certainly cannot be allowed.

MS SAMUEL: I will withdraw that question. Prior to this incident, were you involved in the elimination of persons?

MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman.

MS SAMUEL: There is a statement by Mr Gold when he mentions as to how he became involved. He says he in fact had heard about persons being eliminated. Mr Chairman, I'm just trying to find this.

MR BOOYENS: Page 16.

MS SAMUEL: On page 16 he mentions:

CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph?

MS SAMUEL: Paragraph 33, on page 16. He says:

Now this would indicate therefore, that you were involved in this type of work, subsequent to this particular incident.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think so. It would - that there were members of the Security Police involved, not that he himself was involved, that they had heard rumours and innuendoes that the Security Police as such, the body of Security Police, some of them were involved in killing other people.

MS SAMUEL: I won't ask that question any more.

CHAIRPERSON: But on that basis, I think you could ask it.

MS SAMUEL: Were you - sorry, Mr Chairman. Were you involved in this sort of work then?

MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman.

MS SAMUEL: Were you aware of any members or persons under you who were involved in this sort of thing?

MR VAN ZYL: Not at that time, no, Mr Chairman.

MS SAMUEL: Did you not ask Col Visser as to why he had in fact chosen you to undertake this sort of job?

MR VAN ZYL: I don't think I asked him Mr Chairman. Col Visser did mention that he did not want to involve any of his members of his branch because that could have put himself in a very bad position in the branch. I accepted that he had used me because maybe he decided that he could trust me at the time.

MS SAMUEL: Do you know whether any questions or any investigation was raised after the disappearance of this person?

MR VAN ZYL: I don't know, no Mr Chairman.

MS SAMUEL: Were you also aware that at some stage - were you ever made aware that at some stage this person was detained and laid a complaint about injuries which he suffered?

MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman.

MS VAN DER WALT: May I please just ask here? This is not my client but it will be necessary for me to know this? The legal representative of the family speaks of this person, I would just like to know who is the person to whom she is referring because that can be in dispute, if she can just say this person is - she must also not say the deceased, she must say whom she is referring to because it can be important.

MS SAMUEL: The person I am referring to is Oupa Ronald Madondo.

MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I have never known a person by that name.

MS SAMUEL: You have never known of a person by that name? But you cannot dispute that it was him possibly who was in fact the person eliminated?

MR VAN ZYL: That it was him possibly?

MS SAMUEL: That it was him who was the person involved in this.

MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I cannot say if it was this person at all and I cannot identify him by the photographs in this publication that's available to me either. I only knew him by the name that Col Visser mentioned to me and that was his MK fighting name, bush name, pseudonym at the time, which was Scorpion and I'm sorry, I would have really liked to have identified the person by these pictures that are available, because it is also important to me as a person, but I am sorry, I cannot identify him as Oupa Madondo, Mr Chairman.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr van Zyl, just to get this clear for me. The picture of the person appears at page 140 and 141. Are you saying that could not be the person you are talking about?

MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman, excuse me. What I'm saying is that I'm unable to identify him by these pictures. I cannot confirm that this was the person. The likeness that I have a recollection about is not identical to this person that I see in these pictures.

CHAIRPERSON: But, you can't confirm that it was this person, but you can't deny it either?

MR VAN ZYL: My honest opinion Mr Chair is that it does not look like the person whom I vaguely recall.

MR LAX: If I may? I understood your earlier evidence to be that this happened a long time ago and that your memory was such that you couldn't remember this person clearly enough to be able to identify him from the photographs, that was the tenor of your testimony previously. You're now saying something subtly different to that. You're saying that the image you have in your head is different to these photographs and that's a positive failure to identify, that's a positive statement, saying the person you remember is different to this person. What you said previously in your testimony was that this happened a long time ago and you can't remember whether this person in these pictures is the same as that person.

MR VAN ZYL: It is not meant that way, Mr Chairman. I would have thought that if I'd seen these pictures or the pictures of the person, that I would have been able, that it would refresh my memory and that I would have been able to identify the person. These photographs do not do that for me and the memory is very vague, it doesn't seem that this person is familiar to the person that I think I can remember.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but even, if I understand you correctly, even without looking at the pictures that appear on page 140 and 141, you do not have a clear independent picture in your mind of this person, isn't that what you're saying?

MR VAN ZYL: That is what I'm saying Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember how this person was dressed at the time of the assassination?

MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember, no Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: As I understand it, you didn't spend a very long time with this person anyway, perhaps that contributes to your difficulty to be able to have a clear picture in mind of this person?

MR VAN ZYL: That is possible, Mr Chairman, I saw him for the first time late in the afternoon. He travelled in the back of the car during the night. I never had a look during that time at him and I only saw him again during the course of the morning. My picture of him is vague, very vague.

ADV SANDI: When you saw him again the next day in the morning, how many hours did you spend with him?

MR VAN ZYL: After first light, possibly four or five hours maybe, Mr Chairman, at the most.

MS SAMUEL: We'd also bear in mind Mr van Zyl, that this incident happened like a very long time ago as well.

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.

MS SAMUEL: Why didn't you in fact - sorry, why did you in fact hand over a firearm to Mr Carr? Why didn't you in fact give your own firearm to Mr Carr at the time when you were about to shoot the deceased, or Mr Madondo?

MR VAN ZYL: My recollection is that I actually received this firearm at some time prior to that and it could have been shortly or before as I said previously in my testimony, from Mr Gold and I cannot actually recall whether I gave this firearm to Mr Carr with any instruction or whether he took it. I do not think there were any words spoken at the time. My recollection about that is vague as well. The reason for, why this specific firearm was used, as I said before, it was a Walther hand machine carbine with a silencer fitted to it and the reason was only to try and suppress the sound not to draw too much attention to the incident.

MS SAMUEL: You mentioned that in fact when Mr Carr fired, he in fact had missed and - or sorry - you mentioned that this person in fact, when Mr Carr fired, this person, Mr Madondo then jumped up. Mr Carr in fact makes no mention in his application of you in fact, of this person in fact jumping up. He says that he had fired and I think had missed and then you shot this person, Mr Madondo. There was no incident of Mr Madondo suddenly springing up.

MR VAN ZYL: That is - my recollection of that is very clear, Mr Chairman. He jumped up.

MR SAMUEL: Are you in a position to tell us where exactly this incident took place?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, unless things have changed in the area very much, the old farm house was just off the main road between Piet Retief and Pongola on the western side of the dam. It is a very well-known and big dam. It was only known to me as - referred to as the Pongola dam and I cannot remember exactly how far from the national road, but those are the co-ordinates, more or less.

MS SAMUEL: You see because the family would like to know where exactly he was, in fact, where this took place so that they can perform whatever ceremony they need to.

MR VAN ZYL: I understand that and that is why I also indicated my sincere desire to identify the deceased positively because it would be painful for the wrong family to sit here today and listen to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Samuel, perhaps we'll try and find out whether any of the applicants would be able to positively identify the exact spot or the near exact spot where this happened and then it could be arranged that the family could visit this place if they want to.

MS SAMUEL: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Zuko would you kindly, with the assistance of the other legal representatives, see whether you can do something about this?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, I'll take it upon myself to do that.

MS SAMUEL: I have no more questions.

CHAIRPERSON: As was already stated, I think in the interest of especially the family, we should try and make sure whether it was indeed Mr Madondo who was killed because it could be very traumatic if we accept that that's the position and it was in fact another person, but we'll try and see, I think as the Hearing progresses, may be we get more information about it.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Chair. Just on that, have you been able to, this incident is said to have happened in the second half of 1980, have you been able to ascertain from your clients as to the whereabouts of Mr Madondo at that time?

MS SAMUEL: As far as clients' instructions are, is that he has disappeared from 1979 and the possibility is that he could have been in detention for a long period because there were certain periods when he was in fact kept in custody.

ADV SANDI: Has it been accepted that he was in fact a member of the ANC?

MS SAMUEL: It has been accepted that he was a member of the ANC.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Zuko?

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Mr van Zyl, when you first spoke to Mr Visser, you will recall you said in your evidence in chief that he said there was an MK trained person who was arrested, do you recall that?

MR VAN ZYL: Not that he was arrested, Mr Chairman. There was an MK person that had been working for the branch at the time and that he had turned and that he was working for the ANC again and that he had to be eliminated. I cannot recall that Col Visser told me that he was arrested at that time.

MR MAPOMA: I thought you said so in your evidence in chief.

MR VAN ZYL: That he was arrested?

MR MAPOMA: Yes.

MR VAN ZYL: I cannot recall that, Mr Chairman. If I said that, maybe it was because that I later learned that we picked him up from a police station or from ...(intervention)

MR MAPOMA: Did you not say that in your application that Visser said this man was arrested?

MR VAN ZYL: That he was arrested earlier, in paragraph 2 on page 68 or my application, Mr Chairman:

in the fifth line, ...(not translated)

That he was arrested at an earlier stage Mr Chairman.

MR MAPOMA: And then what happened? What was his narration to you then?

MR VAN ZYL: I beg your pardon?

MR MAPOMA: He was arrested earlier on, that's what he said, and then what happened?

MR VAN ZYL: My assumption was that if he had been arrested earlier and then worked for the Security Branch afterwards, that he was obviously released, that he was free to move around and to do the work that his handler expected of him and that he had not been under arrest at that time anymore, that is what the implication was to me at that time.

MR MAPOMA: Now, you also said that a particular member of the Security Branch was the actual handler of the deceased person. Who is that member of the police who was handling the deceased?

MR VAN ZYL: I did not know that at the time, Mr Chairman, I saw that in Col Visser's statement at a much later stage. If I can renew my, I cannot remember if it was Martin van Niekerk, or Martin van Rooyen. I did not know the handler, I said so.

MR MAPOMA: Now that handler was reporting to Mr Visser.

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MAPOMA: So is it your evidence that you never communicated with the handler of the deceased person, you personally?

MR VAN ZYL: I never knew him, Mr Chairman, that's correct.

MR MAPOMA: And did you ever communicate with Brig Goosen yourself directly?

MR VAN ZYL: No, I did not Mr Chairman, not about this matter. I actually met Col Goosen I think only at a later stage, but I knew of him because he was a very senior officer at Security Branch Headquarters.

MR MAPOMA: So I take it that now you relied solely on Col Visser's account and no one else?

MR VAN ZYL: I've already said so, yes, Mr Chairman.

MR MAPOMA: Did Col Visser not tell you where - did you not ask from him, I mean, further verification that this person was a double agent actually?

MR VAN ZYL: I cannot recall the full discussion at this stage, Mr Chairman, but at the time I was satisfied by what Col Visser told me, that it was indeed the case and that it was indeed as serious as he had said.

ADV SANDI: Would it have been a part of normal practice amongst the Security Police if your senior is given an order to do x, y, z, you ask him: "Please give me a full proof of the facts", would that be a normal thing to do?

MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, there was nothing regular about these actions and it was a highly irregular incident. I was a Lieutenant at the time. I'd been one for about one year. Col Visser was a full Colonel, by far my senior and what I knew of him was enough for me at the time not to question and not to seem as if I doubted his word.

MR MAPOMA: But what strikes me Colonel, is that in your evidence you say it was clear that the deceased had to be eliminated, had to be removed completely and that gives me an impression that a full briefing was given to you.

MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman as I said, I cannot remember the full facts of our discussion, but after Col Visser briefed me, to me it was clear enough that this grave action had to be taken at that time and I can now only say that I assume that he had briefed me fairly fully, but I cannot remember the facts because it did not really concern me personally.

MR MAPOMA: The purpose was to kill him so that he cannot advance further his actions, that was the purpose. Is it not so?

MR VAN ZYL: As well as the fact that he was definitely jeopardising, jeopardising the life of his handler and other members of the branch that had been known to him, yes Mr Chairman.

MR MAPOMA: Yes. So for those particular reasons he had to be killed.

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that is what I believed, Mr Chairman.

MR MAPOMA: Now why had his body to be disposed of?

MR VAN ZYL: Perhaps Col Visser could answer that, but all I could think of is that if he had been buried, which was another option, he could be found again, Mr Chairman.

MR MAPOMA: Can you tell this Committee now of any political objective that you intended achieving by disposing of the body of this person?

MR VAN ZYL: The objective was basically to cover up the crime itself, which had a political objective, Mr Chairman.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MR BOOYENS: No thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr van Zyl, you say that you spoke to, as far as you can recall, you spoke to Mr Gold telephonically.

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: And you told him that he needed to come up to Mbazwaan. You indicated from your evidence that some sort of explosion would be required and you said you would have, by innuendo, indicated that it would be a smaller explosion than a larger explosion, so that he wouldn't bring a huge amount of explosive with. That's the gist of what Mr Booyens put to you and you replied in the affirmative.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, accept there's a name Mbazwaan, I think that's in dispute.

MR LAX: Oh yes, the Mbazwaan part of it, that's not in dispute, in the sense that it could have been just as easily Pongola or Josini. But you met him at Pongola, as far as you recall.

MR VAN ZYL: Yes. Mr Chairman, ...(intervention)

MR LAX: The issue here is the focus of the question, just so we can be clear. The rough content of your discussion, I don't expect you to remember your words 20 years later, but the thrust was there was a job to be done, it involved explosives and it didn't involve a large amount of explosives.

MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, yes, I agreed with my representative when he put it to me like that. It is to a great extent speculation on my part, as to what I had said at the time that had to give Mr Gold the idea that he had to bring a certain amount of explosives. I cannot recall how I would have put it, maybe I could have said to him that there was a small package that had to be destroyed. M cannot even say if said that, Mr Chairman, but it is possible.

MR LAX: You see, nowhere in your recollection or in his recollection is there any mention of the HMC with the silencer and the silencer is what is very important. It was an unusual thing to bring a silencer along.

MR VAN ZYL: I think Mr Gold could perhaps shed some light on that, Mr Chairman, because at the time there were weapons like that available from certain branches at headquarters and at some time or other some of the divisions sometimes had access to weapons like there. There were HMCs and there were I think, Uzzis as well, which Mr Gold could tell you about. So ...(intervention)

MR LAX: The issue is a simple one here, the thrust of my question. It's not that those weapons weren't available, it was nowhere do you say you asked him to bring it, because only you would have asked him to bring it, no-one else would have asked him to bring it.

MR VAN ZYL: I cannot recall asking him to bring it, no, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: And nowhere does he say he was asked to bring it. So the issue is not the availability. This is an unusual incident where it would have been unusual to bring a silencer, unless there was a specific request for it.

MR VAN ZYL: Well as far as I can recall, Mr Chairman, the weapon with the silencer did not go with me because I had no idea what Col Visser wanted to see me about. If I had told Mr Gold to bring this weapon with the silencer, I cannot recall it at this time. It is possible.

MR LAX: All I wanted to suggest was that he doesn't mention being asked to bring a silenced weapon.

MR VAN ZYL: I realise that.

MR LAX: Now, as far as the year goes, 1980, are you quite certain in your mind that it was 1980, or are you - could it have been 1979, for example?

MR VAN ZYL: I don't think so. 1980, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: Why are you so certain it was 1980?

MR VAN ZYL: Because it happened a few months before my transfer to Namibia, to Ovamboland and if it had been in 1979, I would have recalled that because I only became an officer at the end of 1978 and in 1979 I assumed the position of Branch Commander at Ladysmith, Natal, and I am sure that I would have remembered if this incident happened in '79.

MR LAX: So you peg this incident chronologically because it was a few months before you were transferred to Namibia.

MR VAN ZYL: This is the way that I recall it, yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember when did you become Branch Commander at Ladysmith?

MR VAN ZYL: I think it was in January 1979, Mr Chairman, because I became an officer in December 1978, that I remember, and I went back to Pietermaritzburg where I'd been stationed at that time and then I received a transfer, and it would have happened in either January or February 1979, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: Now as far as you recall, how many times did you speak to Gold, just the one occasion?

MR VAN ZYL: During this incident?

MR LAX: About this incident and where you asked him telephonically to come up there.

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I think that was only the one time, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: Because he says that you phoned him but he also goes on to say that - at paragraph 34, page 16, just for the record -

MR VAN ZYL: I read this. I can only think that he meant that that was during my telephone conversation which is previous to reporting to Mbazwaan Police Station or Pongola, as I have it, and I definitely did not discuss the incident with him before the time because there was no time for that, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: Precisely. No-one else could have advised him of that either, because nobody else knew besides you and Visser at this point in time, that this operation was going to happen.

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.

MR LAX: You don't know how many times you shot this man.

MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman, I cannot remember. It was once or twice, it could have been twice.

MR LAX: But you definitely hit him once in the head that you know of?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: You don't know whether you hit him anywhere else in his body at this stage?

MR VAN ZYL: No.

MR LAX: And Carr, as far as you recall, only fired one shot.

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct. He said to me afterwards that he had a stoppage. I never inspected the weapon to see whether he had a stoppage or not, he fired one shot.

MR LAX: Of course Carr's version of the incident is different, and you've already had that put to you.

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is why I am so convinced of the distances that I thought that his typist made a mistake or something, because I recall him being much closer to the person than he seems to state.

MR LAX: Okay. And also on Carr's version, there's no indication that the person even got up or attacked you at all.

MR VAN ZYL: It was put to me already. I have a very vivid recollection that he did actually jump up, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: Ja. I mean your recollection is such that he charged at you.

MR VAN ZYL: That was the idea that I got, yes. He was not necessarily charging at me, he was charging in my direction, he was moving in my direction, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: Precisely. If you'll just bear with me a moment, Chair, I just want to check something here.

In the time that you were in the area of Pongola and during the time that Mr Gold was present, Mr Gold mentions this person being called by another name, he talks about Ruben, he talks about Roland, he talks about another name as well, but the name Rue stuck in his head. You didn't hear this person called by the same name?

MR VAN ZYL: No, and as I said I would have liked to have been able to identify him more clearly, but I cannot remember that, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: It's just that you would have been in the same place and the same name would have been mentioned. If Gold heard it, there's a strong likelihood you would have heard it.

MR VAN ZYL: Not only that, I spent much more time with him than Mr Gold did and I still do not remember that.

MR LAX: It's patently clear that the person who was most familiar with him was Col Visser.

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct, Mr Chair.

MR LAX: And just for the record, my own note does indicate that you spoke of this person and you spoke of the relationship between this person and Visser, as being one of informant and handler.

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.

MR LAX: You didn't say he was his handler, but you said their relationship was the same as, and they were comfortable in each other's presence as if ...(intervention)

MR VAN ZYL: They definitely met each other before, yes, but I cannot recall if Mr Visser ever called him by a name, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: Yes. It's highly unlikely that he wouldn't have.

MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR LAX: I mean you were in each other's company for something like 12 hours at least.

MR VAN ZYL: Ja.

MR LAX: And he certainly didn't call him Scorpion in your presence.

MR VAN ZYL: No.

MR LAX: So he must have called him some other name.

MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR LAX: This is not really a question for you, but it is for you in the sense that you formed your own independent justification for this, according to what you've told us. How could Security Headquarters be in mortal danger by one agent turning? How is that even remotely feasible?

MR VAN ZYL: I never said that Security Branch Headquarters was in danger, what I said was that individual members who handled him, or the member that handled him as well as other members that may have been known to him, could have been led into an ambush. Mr Chairman, I personally handled agents in Swaziland and every time I handled that agent I had to meet him at a prearranged place. I had to trust that agent, that agent could have led me into an ambush every time if he had turned, and that goes for every policeman that ever handled agents.

That is what I was speaking about, that this person, if his loyalties had indeed changed, that the person who handled him or those Security Branch members, were in fact in physical danger.

MR LAX: We've heard mountains of testimony during the course of the last four years about agents and handlers and informants and handlers and it's very rare to find that an agent ever comes into contact, an informant, certainly of this nature, with more than two or three handlers at any one time of any description.

MR VAN ZYL: This person had been infiltrated from abroad as a trained MK cadre, Mr Chairman, he was therefore - for him to change his ideological mind-set, he had to be spoken to by various people in the Security Branch who had various interests from the different desks. He had been interrogation for sure, by different people from Security Branch Headquarters and then later by Soweto as well. That was just the norm at the time, he had to know more than one person. Maybe he was handled later by Mr Martin van Niekerk, but before that he must have, during this phase in which he was turned, he must have met more people than only Mr van Niekerk, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's van Rooyen, not van Niekerk, so don't implicate somebody that ...(intervention)

MR VAN ZYL: I'm sorry, I was confused. Sorry, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: The point is a simple one, with respect, the people who turn somebody don't end up being his handlers. The people who do the turning are generally people who move from instance to instance, they're highly skilled at that and in our experience there weren't a lot of them who were excellent at that job, and they went around and they created what came to be called askaris, by using psychological tactics to achieve that purpose. They didn't handle the individuals in the informant capacity, it had very little to do with them. Isn't that so?

MR VAN ZYL: It doesn't change the fact that he knew him, Mr Chairman, and that he knew where they might have been or where they might have moved around. Even though they didn't handle him afterwards he could identify them at any time.

MR LAX: I'll leave it, it's really an academic point and I'm wasting our time here.

MR VAN ZYL: But in hindsight it is also easy to be clever now, Mr Chairman, saying it, with respect from my side. At that time this was the position that stared us in the face and that is the way we reasoned at that time. I'm not trying to justify this action, I've never tried to justify our actions, I'm just trying to explain what the conditions were and how we thought and how our minds worked at that time. They might have been totally wrong, and in hindsight, they have been wrong. And those are the facts.

MR LAX: No, no, I realise that and I see that from the way you've been answering the questions. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Can he be excused?

MR BOOYENS: Ja, I would ask that he be excused, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Would he be available if something should crop up, or what's the position?

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I will ask that he be excused, but Mr van Zyl will be an aeroplane flight away this week. Next week ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Aeroplane flights may even be quite a distance. No, ...(indistinct - no microphone). Mr Booyens, we won't recall him if it's not necessary or if you yourself don't think it's necessary to recall him.

MR BOOYENS: I'm talking about a domestic flight.

CHAIRPERSON: Right. Who would be the next witness?

MR WILLS: Thank you, Chairperson, I call Mr Gold.

DONALD SPENCER GOLD: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY MR WILLS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, Members of the Committee.

Mr Gold, you made an application for amnesty which appears at pages 1 to 6 of the bundle and attached to that you made an affidavit which appears at pages 7 to 20 of the bundle, is that correct?

MR GOLD: That is correct, Sir.

MR WILLS: Do you confirm the contents of those two documents?

MR GOLD: I do, Mr Chairman.

MR WILLS: Mr Gold, you confirm further that you are withdrawing your applications in respect of those items which appear at 4.3 and 4.4 of the bundle, i.e. the kidnapping of an ANC operation, or the attempted kidnapping of an ANC operative in Swaziland and the crossing from Swaziland into South Africa without going through a border post.

MR GOLD: I do, Mr Chairman.

MR WILLS: Thank you. Mr Gold, you've had a fairly long career in the Security Branch of the SAPS, up to the point of this incident that you are applying for amnesty, i.e. in 1980, is that correct?

MR GOLD: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR WILLS: Can you briefly explain or briefly tell the Committee what your career was involved in. I know it's quite well documented, but just briefly run through it for the benefit of the victims.

MR GOLD: Mr Chairman, after being recruited into the Security Branch, end of January 1972, I went on course -sorry, November 1972, I went on a course, basic Security Branch course. I was then transferred to Pietermaritzburg Security Branch.

My duties here included, my first duties included undercover intelligence gathering to do with academics and students on the campus of the University of Pietermaritzburg.

Towards the middle of 1973 I was transferred to do field work among white suspects, including students, as well as assisting in intelligence gathering operations along the Swaziland and Mozambique borders with Natal.

In 1974 I was assigned to the Howick/Bulwer, basically the southern Drakensburg area and the Natal Midlands area, where I continued with tasks related to intelligence gathering and keeping eyes on suspects and other security matters. These duties included stints along our eastern border with Lesotho.

MR WILLS: Mr Gold, to cut a long story short, this appears in your affidavit, but I want you to concentrate on paragraph 21 on page 12, and you confirm that during that period of involvement with the Security Police, you were a loyal and dedicated member trying to do the job to the best of your abilities.

MR GOLD: Yes, Sir.

MR WILLS: Your motivation in what you did was that you were operating against the ANC and its communist influence and you felt that that was the right thing to do.

MR GOLD: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR WILLS: Now I want to turn specifically to the incident in respect of which you're applying for amnesty, and that appears at page 15 of the bundle. This is the murder, your involvement in the murder and defeating the ends of justice in respect of the demise of Mr Madondo, the deceased in this matter. Do you know exactly, or did you know at that time the identity of the person whose body you destroyed?

MR GOLD: Not at all, Mr Chairman. The only time I heard a name mentioned was a week or two ago when I saw this bundle for the first time. Up until that time I had no idea.

MR WILLS: Now you have been shown the photographs that appear on the bundle, at the end of the bundle from pages 140, can you recognise this person from those photographs?

MR GOLD: Mr Chairman, I can neither confirm nor deny the identity of this person. I wish I could.

MR WILLS: Yes. You also are adamant that to the best of your recollection the incident occurred during April 1980. Can you indicate to the Committee why you are sure that this was the date the incident occurred?

MR GOLD: Mr Chairman, I can't recollect why exactly, but the 1st of April sticks in my mind. I remember thinking at the time the irony of it all.

MR WILLS: Mr Gold, you indicated that you indicated to Mr van Zyl that you were available to do work, this combating and elimination of ANC guerrillas, that you were prepared to get involved in this type of work.

MR GOLD: Well, Mr Chairman, one must just remember that that was the nature of the work of the Security Branch per se. We worked according to strict compartmentation, one hand didn't really know what the other one was doing. I mean that's in accordance with the strict rules of intelligence. And from time to time you happened to pick up things, you happened to hear innuendoes or whatever and through the grapevine and through the odd little slip, whether it be at teatime or at social gatherings or sometimes in meetings, you would glean or gather that there was something extra going on and I did let it be known, through innuendo as well, that I would be available for such things, not knowing what they were, I would be available.

MR WILLS: Now your relationship with Apt van Zyl, his indicated in his evidence that it was a good relationship and you trusted him implicitly.

MR GOLD: Oh yes.

MR WILLS: Now when he called you to perform this operation, what was your attitude and how did you view this communication between him and yourself?

MR GOLD: Well I realised that he was in need of help related to the type of innuendo message that I sent him and I realised that this was something of this nature that was about to happen. And him being as highly respected an officer as he was at the time, I had no hesitation in assisting him or agreeing to help him.

MR WILLS: And what did you think the purpose of this operation was in terms of the sort of bigger picture as regards the position of the Security Police and the politics in the country generally at that time?

MR GOLD: Well I had no doubt that this was involving what we used to term terrorists and that here was a chance to get into action against the same terrorists, as we knew them at that time, and that obviously there was going to be some kind of ambush or other. That's how I saw it. Or some kind of operation where people would be arrested.

MR WILLS: Now your involvement in this commenced with a telephone call which it's common cause, that Mr van Zyl called you and asked for your assistance. Can you relate to the Committee what you recall about the contents or what was discussed on the telephone at that particular point in time.

MR GOLD: No, Mr Chairman, I don't think we should be restricted to one telephone call, it might have been more, but all I remember was that I was asked to report - I thought it was in Mbazwaan, I still think it was, but I was asked to report to Mbazwaan, with some explosives and that there was a job that required my expertise as a bomb disposal specialist, or as an explosives man.

MR WILLS: You say you cannot recall, and I'm referring to paragraph 34 on page 16, you cannot recall as to whether or not you were told at that stage that your expertise were going to be used for the purposes of blowing up a body, is that correct?

MR GOLD: No, I cannot recall that exactly, but I may have surmised it, yes.

MR WILLS: Now before I forget, there is an issue regarding who brought the main charge of the explosives. You've said in your affidavit that you didn't bring all of the explosives to the scene, can you ...(intervention)

MR GOLD: You see Mr Chairman, when I started - after my training, when I started working with explosives I had a very strict code of rules because you only make one mistake with explosives and I made very sure that I would never keep explosives, any amount of explosives that could harm a human person or life, at the police station.

Although I was responsible for inspecting the contents of commercial explosives magazines throughout my area, and although I could have kept explosives at any one of these magazines, I decided not to because it just was not a safe thing to do. So because of my strict rule, I find it difficult to believe that I actually brought the explosives. But because it's become an issue here since reading all the statements, I've thought about it. It is possible that I fetched these explosives from Ladysmith Security Branch, it is possible. It is possible.

MR WILLS: In other words, you can't specifically recall this.

MR GOLD: I can't, I cannot, I wish I could.

MR WILLS: You say you arrived at the Mbazwaan Police Station and you were introduced to Col Visser at that stage.

MR GOLD: Mr Chairman, I can't remember if it was at that stage, but I deed meet, during the day I did meet Col Visser. I think it was there at that police station. I'm sure it was in Mbazwaan. But I definitely met Apt van Zyl there, I'm sure I also met Sgt or W/O Carr there and I also saw that the deceased person was in the car.

MR WILLS: Yes. Now ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry, what was the last thing you said? The deceased person was ...? I just didn't catch it.

MR GOLD: ... in the car.

MR LAX: In the car, okay.

MR GOLD: In the car that Apt van Zyl was in. So it must have been, Col or Brig Visser must have been there at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: How far is this police station, Mbazwaan, from the spot actually where the killing took place?

MR GOLD: Sir, I've been there so many times, but to try and remember, it's not very far, that's all I know. Mbazwaan is about half-an-hour drive.

CHAIRPERSON: Past this place, coming from Pongola for instance?

MR GOLD: No, Sir, I couldn't answer that. It's not really my area, but Mbazwaan was about half-an-hour's drive from the Josini dam, I think about half-an-hour's drive from the Josini dam area where this incident took place. I'd be lying if I told you exactly.

MR LAX: Sorry, just for the record, it's a lot further than that.

MR GOLD: Is it.

MR LAX: Yes, it's further south firstly, in that area.

MR GOLD: Okay.

MR LAX: Well almost due east actually I suppose and it's at least an hour, depending on the road at the time, an hour and hour and fifteen minutes probably by vehicle.

MR GOLD: What I do recall, Mr Chairman, is that when we left it was still reasonably dark, it was dark, the sun - it was first light, by the time we reached the destination it was bright light you know. That's what I remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I don't know whether you'll be able to help me, perhaps Mr Lax could help us, but how far from Pongola is this place? The Josini dam, actually the spot at the Josini dam.

MR GOLD: Oh no, not very far. From Pongola it's not far, Sir, although I wouldn't be able to tell you how far. All I know is that it's pretty closed. I'm sorry, I'm being very vague.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.

MR WILLS: You say that some time during that morning, Mr van Zyl informed you about this particular deceased person, that he'd been a security agent, and I'm referring to page 16 and 17 paragraph 36, that this person had been a Security Branch agent and operating under Visser and he'd sold out and become an ANC member.

MR GOLD: Yes, that is what I recall of the conversation, something along the lines that this was an agent who had turned and was now a double-agent working for the ANC, and that this turning had compromised an operation. And I seem to recall that there had already been deaths as a result of this in Swaziland, but I can't be absolutely sure about that.

MR WILLS: Now you also knew - or when did you become alive to the fact that this person was going to be killed and you were going to be blowing up his body?

MR GOLD: On the way to the lake, on the way to Josini dam I was informed. I think we stopped somewhere for the call of nature along the road somewhere and I was informed then that this in fact is what was going to happen.

MR WILLS: Yes. Now why didn't you question this instruction, or why did you remain involved in this operation?

MR GOLD: Mr Chairman, first of all I was dealing with an officer that I knew extremely well and who I respected, that was Apt Sakkie van Zyl. He'd proved himself to me on many occasions that he was an honest person who could be trusted and that he took his work and his tasks extremely seriously, as I did, and for him to ask me to involve myself in something like that, I realised that he needed my help. To reinforce everything, Brig Visser, being a much higher ranking officer, was also on the scene and I had no hesitation in carrying on, Sir, although at the time it did shock me and I wish I'd been somewhere else at the time, frankly. But it was something that I was asked to do and I carried on.

MR WILLS: You also are pretty clear in paragraph 36 that you refer to this person as he appeared to you to be sedated. Why do you say that?

MR GOLD: Sir, I can't recall seeing this person when he wasn't sleeping. But remember I arrived there early in the morning, it was still dark, he was snoozing in the car then and the only time I saw him basically awake was when we got to the disused farmhouse at Josini dam. So he appeared to me to have been sedated.

I know this is a contentious issue here, but I seem to recall that, I thought somebody had told me that he was sedated, but I obviously was wrong, but he did appear to be sedated to me, I suppose because he'd been sleeping and was sleeping most of the time that I saw him.

MR WILLS: You go on further, you say that later you found out that this black male had been drugged.

MR GOLD: Ja, Mr Chairman, that's what I - I can't recall who told me or why I got that impression, but that is the impression that is left with me and I can't recall why I had that impression, apart from the fact that he was sleeping all the time.

MR WILLS: You can't remember ...(intervention)

MR GOLD: I can remember nobody - I can't remember who told me or if in fact anyone did tell me, maybe it's just a perception that I gathered at the time.

MR WILLS: Can you explain to the Committee what your recollection is from the time you left the police station to the time when this operation was completed.

MR GOLD: Mr Chairman, I was actually - as I said, I wished I'd been somewhere else because I realised I'd got myself into something that I really wished I could extract myself from. My thoughts were racing all the way there.

When we arrived at the spot, I remember we got out of the vehicle, the deceased person was lying down, I can't recall it as a tree, but there was a pole or something there and a fence, a wooden picket fence, he was lying there on the grass. I realised then the enormity of what I was expected to do and I realised then that this living person was about to be eliminated and that worried me somewhat, in fact it worried me considerably.

MR WILLS: Ja, carry on, what happened? You arrived there as you say, in your vehicle, you travelled alone in your own vehicle.

MR GOLD: Yes.

MR WILLS: To the scene.

MR GOLD: Yes.

MR WILLS: And then there was a Landrover used.

MR GOLD: Yes, there was a Landrover, I think that was Mr Carr's Landrover and I travelled behind that Landrover to the scene. As I recollect then the deceased was in my vehicle, together with Apt van Zyl and myself in my vehicle and when we arrived there we all got out of the vehicle, the deceased then lay down on the grass, sleeping. I then saw - this business of the submachine gun is not very, very clear, but I then saw the submachine gun come out and it was given to W/O Carr ...(intervention)

MR WILLS: Just on that point, can you remember at any stage having been specifically requested to bring this weapon and you specifically refer to a machine gun with a silencer?

MR GOLD: Mr Chairman, I can't specifically remember being asked to bring it, however it is quite possible that I was asked to bring it because at the time I was working with all the firearms at Natal Security Branch Headquarters in Pietermaritzburg. I had many weapons under my control. I was doing a lot of public relations exercises, talks, going around to police stations, familiarising the uniform members of the police what to look for. I had all kinds of Warsaw pact material, from weapons to bits and pieces of landmines and things like that, so I had a lot of weapons at my disposal. When any weapons needed maintenance or servicing or needed clearing, I was normally the person who got given the job to do it, because I was doing much investigating at that time, I was the inspector of explosives.

I do recall that there was at that time in the safe in Pietermaritzburg, whether it was at that time or not, I did see a Walter(?) submachine fitted with a silencer and the bag that goes with it to pick up the cartridge cases. I remember that. It is possible that I was asked to bring it, but I cannot recollected that.

CHAIRPERSON: You've stated in paragraph 35 that you had at least your pistol and some form of assault ...(intervention)

MR GOLD: Yes, Sir, I always travelled, if I travelled any distance out from my base, I always had my pistol with me, that's for sure, but I always carried some form of assault rifle with me. It might have been - it could have been an R1 rifle, but it could also have been one of the many Warsaw pact weapons that I carried.

CHAIRPERSON: Could it have been this weapon that's been used?

MR GOLD: No, I doubt that very much, and the reason for that, Sir, is that the - I'm a bit of a firearm specialist, and to silence a weapon you have to reduce the speed of the bullet to below the speed of sound, which means it's hitting power is not all that good. So I would not have been too happy carrying something like that in my boot. If I was going to carry an assault weapon of any type, it would have been something that had the necessary hitting power.

CHAIRPERSON: But if you were aware that there would be an elimination of somebody?

MR GOLD: Then again, I wouldn't have carried it either unless I was asked to bring it. So it's possible that it could have happened, Sir, but I cannot recollect it.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR WILLS: As I understand the tenor of your evidence, you're saying that you carried your pistol, an assault rifle, and it is possible that in addition to that you carried this submachine gun.

MR GOLD: It's possible.

MR WILLS: ... with a silencer.

MR GOLD: It's possible, Sir.

MR WILLS: Now turning to paragraph 37 of your affidavit, you indicate that to the best of your knowledge, that - and I'm quoting -

Those are the names that you actually recall this person being referred to.

MR GOLD: Those are the names, or that is what sticks in my mind. The name was either Robert or Rupert or something like that, one of the "Rs", or Robin. That sticks in my minds but I couldn't tell you why. Maybe one of my colleagues who was with me used that name, if so I can't remember who it was.

MR WILLS: But you clearly don't remember the name Scorpion being used.

MR GOLD: No, never. The first time I heard that name was two weeks ago when I saw the bundle for the first time.

MR WILLS: Now I want you to tell us what happened when you arrived at the farmhouse. And you can take us through from paragraph 39 in your affidavit.

MR GOLD: Well when we arrived there everybody seemed to have their allotted duties worked out, everybody, well not everybody, but people knew what they were supposed to be doing and I must say that Mr Schoon was not present, he had gone, I later found out he had gone to get the boat ready.

So at this stage it was Apt van Zyl, W/O Carr and myself, and I was then told what was going to happen, this person was going to be killed and that the body was going to be taken to the dam shore and then we were going to load the body onto a boat, take it to an island and destroy it. That's what I was told.

MR WILLS: Yes.

MR GOLD: We weren't at the house very long and I noticed that the deceased was lying down, as I told you, and I realised then that he was going to be killed. This didn't sit very well with me I can tell you. So I actually moved away from the scene as I couldn't face this murder, it's something I didn't want to see. I then went back to my car which was around the corner from where the hostage was lying and I rummaged in my boot.

As I was moving away I saw Mr Carr moving towards the deceased, with the submachine gun, but that's the last I saw, when he disappeared from my view and I walked towards my vehicle. And while I was rummaging in the boot I heard the shots, in the boot I heard the shots.

MR WILLS: Now you say you heard the shots. Obviously there's a different sound between a silenced submachine gun and a pistol. Can you tell us with a little bit more accuracy what you actually heard or what you can remember hearing.

MR GOLD: Absolutely, Mr Chairman. I did hear the silenced weapon fire first, followed by two, perhaps three, unsilenced pistol shots, rapid, rapid succession.

MR WILLS: You also say that whilst Carr and ...(indistinct) were at the body at the body at the time you didn't see exactly who shot.

MR GOLD: I did not see.

MR WILLS: Now referring to paragraph 41, page 18, you say you were in a total shock, why is this?

MR GOLD: Sir, I'm not in the practice of seeing people killed like that, Mr Chairman. I was in shock. In fact that incident has shaped my life since that day, about 20 years ago.

MR WILLS: It was obviously a very traumatic experience for you.

MR GOLD: I'm afraid it was very traumatic for me.

MR WILLS: Tell us what happened thereafter, after you had heard the shots.

MR GOLD: I went back to the scene and saw the deceased lying on the ground, he'd been shot in the head. I just saw a head wound. We then wrapped the corpse up in a tarpaulin and I was totally numb at the time. I remember seeing traces of blood on the ground and all I could think of was just covering it with sand to hide this thing.

We loaded the corpse wrapped in the tarpaulin on the back of the Landrover and transported it to the edge of the dam. I drove behind the Landrover. I can remember being very worried at the time that the rear door of the Landrover would spring open and the corpse would fall out onto the road, but that didn't happen, thank goodness.

We drove to the edge of the dam and we found a, there was a large boat there, moored there, that's where we found Brig Visser and W/O Schoon waiting in the boat. The corpse was transferred into the boat and I cannot remember, because time to me was total oblivion at that stage, but we did travel for a while on the lake until we got to an island. It was quite some distance.

The explosives were also loaded onto the boat. As I say, I can't recall who brought them, but it could possibly have been me. Everybody was on the boat, the whole party was on the boat. At the island we unloaded the corpse and took it into the middle of the island, more-or-less and the explosives were then packed on the body.

Now in my training I'd been taught how to blow bridges, I'd been taught how to blow railway lines, I'd been taught how to do all kinds of things, but I'd never been taught how to destroy a corpse with explosives. So what we did is we made quite a few flat charges of the explosive, which was a PE4 military explosive, white plastic explosive, and ran a detonating cord through it, commonly known as cortex.

We then took cover and with a controlled detonation, well of course it's a controlled detonation, I detonated the charges. There was nothing left of the body, nothing at all.

MR WILLS: Now this is an area where Mr van Zyl seems to differ with you to a certain extent, that he indicates that there were possibly two explosions and that the pieces of the body were picked up and then a second explosion, or they were detonated or exploded to destroy them. As I understand your evidence you are absolutely sure that there was just one explosion.

MR GOLD: I realise the contention there, Mr Chairman, but I'm absolutely sure. I had to make sure that this thing worked the first time and I was very careful that I had no misfires and the corpse was totally destroyed with the first, with one detonation.

CHAIRPERSON: You couldn't have made sure because you had no experience of what would be needed.

MR GOLD: Well exactly, Sir, I just thought that if - I just actually used more explosive than I think was necessary, but I wanted to make sure.

MR LAX: Is it not possible that there was a second explosion but you've just blocked it out of your mind because of the trauma and the stress and everything else that went with it?

MR GOLD: Mr Chairman, if I can just digress. Since this incident I have studied extensively what happens to the human body during a fight(sic) or flight(sic) response, it's been part of my life, part of what I teach people to do, and there's definitely a period after such a shock where you have no comprehension of time, you have no comprehension of what you've done and it is possible, but no I doubt it.

MR WILLS: The fact of the matter is, Mr Gold, is that you admit like the other applicants that you were involved in the destruction of this body and that you certainly did.

MR GOLD: There's no doubt about it, Mr Chairman.

MR WILLS: And it was you who detonated the charges and destroyed this body.

MR GOLD: I detonated the charges, I destroyed that body.

MR WILLS: Can you tell us what happened thereafter.

MR GOLD: Well as is customary after any controlled detonation we did a, under my instruction we did a 360 degree check to see if there were any un-detonated explosives lying around and if there were any remains of the corpse, but we were satisfied that we had left no trace of our deed. So we all went back to the boat and travelled back to shore where our vehicles were still parked. I still to this day cannot remember the boat trip back to the shore, I was totally numbed by this experience. I think we all were.

We then got into our vehicles and left the scene. I remember waiting with Brig Visser at a picnic site below the bridge where the main road crosses the Pongola river. I can't remember exactly what we were waiting for, but I think Apt van Zyl just wanted to make sure that there were no bad reports about the explosion in the area and that everything had gone off well. He then returned and he reported that all was clear and then we split up.

I can remember then the shot exploder I used for this job was not the conventional commercial shot exploder that I'd been issued with, I used a military shock exploder that was used for detonating Claymore directional mines and to me at that time it was a symbolic gesture, I handed over that shot exploder, I think it was to Mr Schoon, in a manner of saying never again and we all left the scene. I remember it was getting quite late at that stage and I drove and stopped overnight at Qwambenambe Police Station, where I knew there were single quarters. I can recall it being a very, very hot night and it was a very sleepless one for me, I can assure you.

Through that same process of innuendo I mentioned right at the beginning and ambiguities, I indicated there was no way that I would ever get involved in anything like that again and I was never asked again.

MR WILLS: And you've never been involved in anything like this again.

MR GOLD: Never, Sir.

MR WILLS: Now Mr Gold, there's possibly members of the deceased's family here, do you have anything to say to them?

MR GOLD: Yes, I do. I must say that I don't want to bore you with long speeches about why we did what we did or why I was doing the work I was doing, but over a long time we were conditioned to the stage where we could actually do things like this, perhaps.

You must remember that from a very, very early age I was exposed to the violence that was happening in the country. I can remember at that age of eight, looking out of my bedroom window in Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg and seeing the community hall of Sebantu village burning during unrest and that was the first indication to me that we had a problem here.

And then throughout the years for instance, the propaganda that we were exposed to, but no propaganda could ever teach me that black people were bad, or no propaganda could teach me not to respect and love the nursemaid I had who first taught me Zulu or uBuntu or whatever you'd like to call it. I realised there was something seriously wrong, but the savage nature of the symptoms of the Nationalist Government, the savage nature of the symptoms, there were so many of them. I can recall things like the Bashe Bridge murders, I can recall things like the Langa riots, I can recall the Cato Manor riots, I can recall the nun, Dr Mary Quinlan who was killed during township unrests and the mob eating her body which they cooked on her burning car. Stuff like that left a lasting impression on me and I wanted to fight this. I realised that black people weren't being treated right, but nothing, but nothing could condone the savagery of those symptoms.

Anyway, to cut it short, if the deceased is who we think he is, then we were fighting on opposing sides, we were fighting a war that was caused by ideologies and fanned by politicians. I think I was about four months old when the Nationalist Government came to power, I had nothing to do with the formulation of their policies, but I had a lot to do with the symptoms of that rule and as I say, we fought on different sides. And it has occurred to me that I've been indicated that it's the sister of the deceased who is facing me now and it's just occurred to me that it could be my mother, my sister, my children sitting there now, because what happened to the deceased could quite easily have happened to me. I was involved in a lot of covert operations both inside and outside. Nothing, nothing like this I can tell you, but was often in the company of people, being all alone by myself, often in the company of people who thought I was one of them and had they discovered that I was not one of them, it would be my mother sitting there now, Sisi, you must understand that.

So I empathise with the family of the deceased, I would be very heartless if I did not do so. And for the pain that you have had to suffer, I apologise ...(Zulu), Sisi, I apologise.

MR WILLS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we could take the adjournment now and would it be inconvenient if we could resume at 2 o'clock? Would that be okay?

DONALD SPENCER GOLD: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: You are free to take off your coats if you find it necessary. Mr Booyens?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Gold, April 1980, Mr van Zyl says his recollection is, although he's not nearly as accurate as you as far as a specific date is concerned, is the second of the years, in other words after June. Could that also possibly be the case?

MR GOLD: Mr Chairman, it's possible, that's also possible.

MR BOOYENS: Fine. The communications addressed to you by Mr van Zyl prior to this incident, are you - I didn't quite understand you, are you saying there could have been one phone call or more than phone call, or are you saying there was actually more than one phone call?

MR GOLD: Well I don't know how many there were. There might have been only one, but I doubt it because you know there would have been maybe one to warn me that something is going down, another one to ask me if I'd got this or whether I'd got the car and to confirm that I'd be there. There was probably more than one, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: No, I can see that, but would you agree that the phone calls about this incident were all on the previous day?

MR GOLD: Oh yes, no doubt. Definitely, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: So if there were two, irrespective, two or three phone calls it doesn't really matter, but they were all on the day before the incident.

MR GOLD: I agree with that, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, would that really be relevant? They assembled there and they killed this man.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, no, the reason why I asked that question, I think it was Commissioner Lax that dealt with the previous knowledge that explosives will be necessary, so all I want to established is that there wasn't a week long planning beforehand and that is why I submit it is relevant.

As far as your relationship in the Security Police is concerned, would it be correct to say that in those days you were a very close-knit community and there was a great amount of trust between you as Security policemen?

MR GOLD: Definitely, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: And you also accepted when Mr van Zyl approached you, that this would not be something that would be decided upon lightly and although you didn't, I don't recall you mentioning it, but do you recall that it was mentioned perhaps, that you perhaps just left it out, that head office okayed this operation?

MR GOLD: No, that wasn't told to me at all.

MR BOOYENS: You were not told about that.

MR GOLD: Not on - not, no. In fact, I always secretly hoped while we were waiting for this hearing, I secretly hoped that somewhere that would be the case, and I saw it in the bundle for the first time.

MR BOOYENS: Oh I see. But you didn't know it at the time.

MR GOLD: No.

MR BOOYENS: But when you saw a senior officer there you realised that this decision was taken much higher.

MR GOLD: Then I realised this was a heavy decision or something that was serious.

MR BOOYENS: I see. Insofar as your recollection of Mbazwaan is concerned, Mbazwaan is on the coast.

MR GOLD: It is although not in sight of the coast.

MR BOOYENS: Ja, ja, no. The conditions of the roads in those days, were they not merely - I'm specifically talking about 1980, were they not just basically sand roads?

MR GOLD: They were sands roads but they were pretty good.

MR BOOYENS: I see. You see because - and that's not really an important issue, but bearing in mind that these people came from the Johannesburg side, from the Transvaal side, they would have basically to drive past Josini and then turn back.

MR GOLD: That is true. I can see that I may mistaken, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: I see. I've got no further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Gold, the distance between Mbazwaan and Josini to the spot is approximately 70 kilometres, would you agree to that?

MR GOLD: Sir, if you told me that's what it is, I would have to agree with you.

MR PRINSLOO: And Pongola to the spot is approximately 50 kilometres, will you agree to that?

MR GOLD: I would have thought a little shorter than that, but if you tell me that I'll have to agree with you there as well.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, it's approximately.

MR GOLD: Yes, Sir.

MR PRINSLOO: No further, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS SAMUEL: Mr Gold, you mentioned just before the adjournment that you had been involved in some sort of covert operations as well, what sort of operations were these?

MR GOLD: Mr Chairman, just being in the Security Branch was a covert operation, I mean everything you did was covert you know. For instance we might have got an instruction to go and keep surveillance at somebody's house, now you didn't want everybody in the neighbourhood to know you're doing this, so it was covert. The nature of our job was covert work.

MS SAMUEL: When did you come to realise that your job of that nature, covert? Was it after this incident?

MR GOLD: No, not at all, Mr Chairman, I realised that the moment that I applied to join the Security Branch from the Police College. I knew that was the nature of the work.

MS SAMUEL: So you were prepared to become involved in this sort of thing.

MR GOLD: Covert operations? Oh yes, as an Intelligence Officer, it's what I wanted to be ever since I was a little boy, Mr Chairman.

MS SAMUEL: And will it be correct then that later on you were prepared to get involved in bigger things, because you decided to become involved, as you mention on page 16, in the elimination of ANC guerrillas?

MR GOLD: Well let's put it to you this way, Mr Chairman, that was nothing really - the elimination of guerrillas, was nothing really new to anybody who worked in intelligence in this part of the world. I mean, like all of my colleagues, most of my colleagues, I'd been seconded to Special Branch in Rhodesia, like all of my colleagues I'd served in the then South West Africa, in anti-Swapo operations, and they were all covert operations. This was the nature of our work.

MS SAMUEL: Now this person you mentioned in your papers who was being called by the name Rupert, Robert, Robin, is it possible that he could have also been called by the names Rue, because the names are very similar?

MR GOLD: It's possible, yes, Mr Chairman. I mean I can't deny that, it is possible. I can't recollect hearing that one syllable, no.

MS SAMUEL: Could it have been Ronald?

MR GOLD: It could have been.

MS SAMUEL: Can you tell us exactly who was actually having a discussion with him whilst you were in the car?

MR GOLD: If we talk discussions ...(intervention)

MS SAMUEL: Did anybody speak to him?

MR GOLD: Yes, I think people did speak to him and it would have been, Apt van Zyl would have said one or two things to him. I might have said one or two things to him, although I wouldn't have had any business to say anything to him, but I might have. I might have heard -I don't know who spoke to him. But it's possible I spoke to him, it's possible Apt van Zyl spoke to him.

MS SAMUEL: Did Col Visser speak to him as well?

MR GOLD: That I cannot say, that I cannot say.

MS SAMUEL: You mentioned that this person appeared to have been drugged, is that correct?

MR GOLD: That was my perception at the time, which could be mistaken because when I first saw him he was sleeping. He slept all the way from where we met till when we got to the disused farmhouse and then he lay down again when we were at the farmhouse, on the grass in front of the old farmhouse. So, that's probably where I got the perception from.

MS SAMUEL: You see because you go on on page 16, after say that -

... it's paragraph 36.

So it couldn't have been something that you perceived or assumed, somebody must have told you.

MR GOLD: Something has stuck in my mind, definitely, otherwise I would not have mentioned it, but I can't tell you exactly how or what or who told me or how it happened that I made that statement.

MS SAMUEL: So then this could not be a perception, somebody told you he was drugged and to you he appeared to be drugged, isn't that so?

MR GOLD: Maybe, maybe it was just a - maybe it was a mistake on my part, but I mean as far as I was concerned, when I made this statement - it always stuck in my mind that he was sedated. You must remember that I made this statement about 18 years after the incident, it's now almost 20 years after the incident.

MS SAMUEL: Yes, but you would not have stated that you later found out that the black male had been drugged, if this was merely something that you assumed.

MR GOLD: Yes. No, I can see whether the contention comes in, but I still say that it was a perception.

MS SAMUEL: Are you saying now that this was an error on your part, in stating that you had found out that this man ...(intervention)

MR GOLD: It's possible, it's possible it was an error, Ma'am.

MS SAMUEL: Now you went on to say that van Zyl had told you sometime during the morning that this black male had been an SAP Security Branch agent operating under Visser and he had sold out and become an ANC member.

MR GOLD: Yes.

MS SAMUEL: That is in paragraph 36 on page 16.

MR GOLD: Yes.

MS SAMUEL: Would it be correct to say then that this person, that Visser was the handler of this person or did you assume that he was handling him?

MR GOLD: I assumed that maybe he did have something to do with handling the man yes, but I couldn't say for sure.

MS SAMUEL: You see because van Zyl's statement today is different, he says when he was with this person in the car and with Visser, he doesn't say there was a handler, that Visser was a handler, he says there appeared to be a handler/informant relationship.

MR GOLD: Right.

MS SAMUEL: And when it was put to him, although in error, that he had stated that he was a handler, he corrected it immediately and said "No".

MR GOLD: Okay. Mr Chairman, one must remember that I didn't have any information of what went on between Apt van Zyl and Brig Visser, all I had was what Apt van Zyl told me and in the communicating of that information to me, somewhere along the line I must have assumed that Brig Visser may have been a handler. It's an innocent mistake.

MS SAMUEL: You see this is the second occasion you are saying that you assumed things. If something was told to you, you would now say it was told to you, but you keep assuming things. As soon as these discrepancies are being put to you, you are just assuming it.

MR GOLD: Mr Chairman, I can't think of what else to tell you, that is exactly what happened, what I'm telling you.

MS SAMUEL: So can you tell us whether this was in fact told to you by Mr van Zyl, or are you assuming it now?

MR GOLD: It's possible that he told me that.

MS SAMUEL: Now did you know Visser?

MR GOLD: No, I met him for the first time on that day.

MR WILLS: With respect, Mr Chairperson, I don't see any contradiction between this and the evidence that has gone past so far. I think it's common cause to my mind, unless I'm misunderstanding something, that this informer was actually operating under Visser. That's exactly what the witness says. Unless I'm missing the point of this cross-examination, I see that as being Mr van Zyl's evidence.

MS SAMUEL: No, the point I wish to make, Mr Chairman, is that when that question was put through it was immediately corrected to say there was, there appeared to be a relationship, but he didn't say specifically - that is van Zyl, that Visser was the handler of this person. But Mr Gold says that he was told by van Zyl that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: On the evidence we have, Gold was stationed at Pietermaritzburg, van Zyl was stationed at Ladysmith, Visser in Soweto, the person that's been involved, who has been killed, in the Rand area he operated or he came from there. So clearly, Mr Gold saw this man for about an hour or two hours while he was still alive, van Zyl drove with him from Johannesburg, they didn't know him, on all the evidence we've got so far, and unless you've got evidence that they in fact knew him and they knew who the handler was, we're speculating about it and the witness who has to tell us more about it is Visser. Obviously they say "we don't know".

MS SAMUEL: Mr Gold, you mentioned that this incident has shocked you and numbed you and made you extremely upset, is that correct?

MR GOLD: That's quite correct.

MS SAMUEL: In fact it has had an impact on your life.

MR GOLD: It's been a cathartic experience for me, Mr Chairman.

MS SAMUEL: But you, Mr Gold, on your own on page 16, that's at paragraph 33, you yourself mentioned that you in fact had indicated on your own to Apt van Zyl that you were available to do this sort of work that is eliminating people.

MR GOLD: Mr Chairman, that does not specify this kind of work, it specifies operations against terrorists. Now there's one this about hot blood and there's another thing about cold blood, Mr Chairman.

MS SAMUEL: So what you are in fact saying is that you were prepared to become involved in the elimination of ANC terrorists.

MR GOLD: I was prepared to become more involved in the fight against the ANC, because that's what I firmly believed at the time, that that was what was necessary for the country.

MS SAMUEL: And in the elimination of terrorists?

MR GOLD: The elimination of terrorists could be, could even mean putting them in jail you know, Mr Chairman.

MS SAMUEL: What about shooting them, killing them?

MR GOLD: If there was a gunfight yes, it would have to be done. During the attempt to arrest these people one might have to use that as a force option to effect the arrest of those people.

MS SAMUEL: So what you are saying now is this act was committed in cold blood then.

MR GOLD: There's no doubt about it.

MS SAMUEL: There was no reason to do it.

MR GOLD: I don't - no, that I didn't say, that I did not say. If I think back now, what I told you before about the build-up since I was a child and the propaganda that we were all subjected to and the kind of experience that I had in Rhodesia, the kind of experience I had in South West Africa, this was the build-up to that thing. I can't say - although personally I was shocked and I found it abhorrent, I have agonised for 20 years to try and make some sense out of it. I've agonised for 20 years to try and find some justification.

MS SAMUEL: But you yourself went ahead and even became satisfied at the end, satisfied yourself that in fact the body was completely destroyed or eliminated.

MR GOLD: Because that is what I was required to do as my job in that particular case, Mr Chairman.

MS SAMUEL: You mentioned earlier on that you cannot remember whether you were asked to in fact bring any particular weapon, is that correct?

MR GOLD: That's true, Mr Chairman.

MS SAMUEL: But you said it's possible that you could have been asked.

MR GOLD: It's possible, Mr Chairman.

MS SAMUEL: Did you not then realise at that stage that you were going to actually become involved in the elimination of the body and that some act would have had to be committed, or some murder would have had to be committed before that body was eliminated?

MR GOLD: Mr Chairman, the use of a silenced weapon does not mean necessarily that you're going to assassinate somebody, there are many reasons why you would use a silent weapon. For instance, if you had to do a house penetration where you had to arrest people in that house and there was a group of you penetrating that house and there'll be different people in different rooms, it might be necessary when you enter this room, instead of using a gun that is going to make a lot of noise to warn the other people in the other rooms, giving them cause to escape and maybe perhaps a reason to escape, you would use a silent weapon on the actual penetration. That is accepted practise. The British SAS use it, I mean it's all over the world, Russian Spes ...(indistinct), everybody uses that tactic.

MS SAMUEL: At which stage did you hand over this firearm to van Zyl?

MR GOLD: Now you see I'm not sure whether I did bring it or not, so I can't say exactly. I'm not sure whether I brought it or not, Mr Chairman.

MS SAMUEL: You also stated at page 18 of your application, paragraph 42, that explosives were packed on the body -

MR GOLD: Well that is true, I had never blown up a body before and I have not done it since.

MS SAMUEL: Did van Zyl tell you or did you ask him to show you how to do this?

MR GOLD: No, we all did this together basically, but because I'd never done it before I was - actually as I said, I was quite numb about it, so he assisted in this operation.

MS SAMUEL: Was he the person who assisted you the most, in showing you how to place these explosives ...(intervention)

MR GOLD: I think in retrospect it was just the two of us. I can't recall if Mr Schoon was involved in that part of the operation or not, I cannot remember, but it was definitely the two of us.

MS SAMUEL: When van Zyl asked you to become involved in this operation, did you not ask him or did you not ask him exactly what was going to be done?

MR GOLD: Mr Chairman, I must say I was curious, but you know we had extremely strict rules about talking on the telephone, you never ever spoke in detail on the telephone at all, never. We had extremely strict rules about that. So no, I would not have asked him.

MS SAMUEL: What did you think he was going to ask you to do?

MR GOLD: Well from time to time, and this was often, this was a routine part of our job being in the Security Branch, we would intercept information at a certain time on a certain date, there would be a crossing through Mac's Pass or Makanya's Drift or something like, we would then go and lay ambush positions and we would wait for the people and they would be arrested. I thought it was another one of those.

MS SAMUEL: But when he asked you to bring explosives, did you not think that there was something more than just the mere arresting of the person involved?

MR GOLD: Well it was unusual, but the fact that he asked for them made me certain that I would bring them, or that they would be used if he did ask me.

MS SAMUEL: You accept then that the request to become involved in this did not come from any higher authority, it was a request made by van Zyl?

MR GOLD: Well not anymore, at the time he was high enough as far as I was concerned.

MS SAMUEL: You didn't take any steps to find out whether this came from headquarters?

MR GOLD: There again, Mr Chairman, our system of strict compartmentation would have prohibited that. If I'd have started asking questions it would have jeopardised my job, you just don't ask questions.

CHAIRPERSON: And was the position of the Colonel being present?

MR GOLD: Oh at that stage, then I realised, by then I realised that there was something going down when he was there. That confirmed for me that this thing was really important, as Mr van Zyl had told me.

MS SAMUEL: You have told us also about how sorry you feel about this whole thing and how remorseful you are about it.

MR GOLD: Oh yes.

MS SAMUEL: And you also told us that this is something that you, it's very painful to you, but this was part of a whole - that this was an ongoing thing that was going on during that time. Did you not realise that on the other side there was also a family that was now being torn apart as a result of these actions?

MR GOLD: Definitely, definitely, Mr Chairman.

MS SAMUEL: According to the family, as a result of what happened to this person two of his sons today are in fact in prison because of lack of fatherly care and nobody to bring them up.

MR GOLD: That is quite possible, Mr Chairman.

MS SAMUEL: Did that not come into your mind at that stage, did that not occur to you?

MR GOLD: Over the last 20 years I've agonised about such things.

MS SAMUEL: After this incident, did you continue to remain in the Security Forces, or did you in fact leave?

MR GOLD: I stayed for another year, two years.

MS SAMUEL: What made you then come back thereafter? Because you indicated some time in your papers that in 1984 you were recruited once again.

MR GOLD: Absolutely, Mr Chairman.

MS SAMUEL: In the light of the fact that you agonised over this whole thing, why did you decide to join the Security Forces once again?

MR GOLD: Well you see the job that I was offered the second time, was a job that was pure intelligence, it was just intelligence gathering. I wouldn't be put in a situation where I would have to do any shooting or firing, in fact I didn't even have a firearm. So it was pure intelligence work. And because of the enormity of the things that were happening, because of the savagery of some of the incidents that were happening, I could not stand on the side anymore and watch. I tried very hard, but I couldn't and I accepted the offer and I came back into the Security Branch, into the Intelligence Section, where I worked undercover.

MS SAMUEL: But as a result of becoming involved in this intelligence work, would that not have led to the same sort of situation where persons would have been eliminated?

MR GOLD: Not necessarily.

MS SAMUEL: I have no further questions.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Ms Samuel, the Scorpion name, is that known to your clients, the name that says Scorpion?

MS SAMUEL: Could I just take instructions?

MS SAMUEL: Mr Chairman, the name Scorpion is known to client. On his return from Angola he had taken on the name of Scorpion.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Sir.

Mr Gold, during the time when there was a conversation with the deceased, when you captured this name being called to him, what was the nature of conversation? Was it interrogatory or not?

MR GOLD: No, maybe "We've arrived, will you get into this car, get out of that car and get into this car, please get out of the car", that kind of thing.

MR MAPOMA: Was he, the deceased, in your presence interrogated or confronted at all about the allegations of double-agents?

MR GOLD: No, Mr Chairman.

MR MAPOMA: I would like to get your comment here. The deceased's family dispute that the deceased was a double-agent at all. Do you have any comment on that?

MR GOLD: I wouldn't have any comment about that, Mr Chairman, I would not have any comment. I was just told what I was told, further than that I had no knowledge of this person before that morning, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. What did they say in fact, was he an active member of the ANC? We've heard he took on this name coming back from Angola, was he an active MK member, what was his position?

MEMBER OF VICTIM'S FAMILY: A recruit.

MR MAPOMA: Their version is that he was an active MK operative.

ADV SANDI: I was going to say, Mr Mapoma, I hear you saying that the family of the deceased deny that the deceased was a double-agent, but is it not in the nature of being a double-agent - I'm not suggesting for a moment that the deceased was such a double-agent, but isn't that something normally people would keep in secrecy?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, that ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: They would not even tell their spouses about it.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, it does happen, Chair, but I wanted to put this version because if the victim's relatives testify they may delve further on why they come with that version. I mean in substance than just putting the version now as I do.

I have no further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR WILLS: No re-examination, thank you Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Just one thing, Chair.

Mr Gold, I'm just puzzled by this aspect in the papers at page 18, that was alluded to by Ms Samuel and that is the question of van Zyl showing you how this was to be done and you said you might be mistaken about that. Why would you have said it in the first place? I mean you didn't know how to do it yourself and so the inference is that somebody showed you what to do because you were the expert in explosives but you hadn't done this sort of thing before.

MR GOLD: I think I can explain this, Mr Chairman. I think Mr van Zyl could see that I was shocked and numbed by this whole thing and I think his assistance there was due to what he saw. I think that's what happened there.

MR LAX: So are you saying rather than showing you what to do he just took the lead and took over?

MR GOLD: He didn't take the lead, he just helped me with what I was doing I would say.

MR LAX: So it doesn't clearly express what you intended to say, is that what you're saying?

MR GOLD: Not really.

MR LAX: Thanks, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR GOLD: Thank you, Sir.

MR WILLS: Mr Chairperson, is Mr Gold excused at this point in time?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, could he be excused? Any objections? On the condition that if we need him we'll let you know and he kindly shouldn't go as far as an air flight from Durban if possible.

MR WILLS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Chairperson, I call Mr Visser.

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 -

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR LAX: Can I just ...

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions.

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.

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 -

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 -

... 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.

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.