Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-18

MR WILLS: Surely one of the things that you would have known about him is his real name.  It would have been recorded, because this person had been turned over, as it were, you would have known that information, it wouldn't have been something secret to you.  This person Scorpion.  Can't you remember his real name?

MR VISSER: It must be recorded some place I believe, but I can't put my hand on it at this moment.  And the name that sticks in my memory is Scorpion and that is why I asked for amnesty under that name, mentioning that name of his.

MR WILLS: But you must ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Wills, can I just come in here, maybe you will be moving on to something else.
	You see one thing I have a difficulty to understand here is, did you say Scorpion was his MK name?

MR VISSER: That's correct, that's his Umkhonto name.

ADV SANDI: You did not give him your own name, your own codename after you had turned him?

MR VISSER: I didn't give him another name.  I am not aware of the fact that he got another name, that is how I remember him.  It could be that he got another name.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but just tell me, what was the normal practice if you turn an MK or APLA cadre to work for you and leave his own organisation, would you not give him your own codename and not continue calling him by the same name he was using whilst in that liberation movement?

MR VISSER: A name would have been given to him normally, or a code number or something would have been given to him, but this is the name that stuck in my memory after 20 years, from which I identify the person or the incident.

ADV SANDI: But if Martin van Rooyen came to you to give you the report as to the progress this man was making in his work, who would he call him?  How would he refer to him?

MR VISSER: I can't remember what name he was called, he could have had a code number, an informant number in a report without a name on it, Mr Chair.

ADV SANDI: But if there was some other name he was using to refer to him, isn't that logically and naturally the type of name that would stick in your mind and not Scorpion?

MR VISSER: No, the name that stuck with me was the name that became known during the man's interrogation, his MK name.  That is the name I remembered in the light of the information that we got from him, Mr Chair.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.  Carry on, Mr Wills.

MR LAX: Sorry, I just want to check one thing here, I'm puzzled now.
	Did I hear you correctly, did you say that it was normal that once someone had been turned and had agreed to work for the police as a spy, they would get a different name, they wouldn't necessarily carry on using their MK name?

MR VISSER: Yes, it's possible that he - it was not normal for him to use his old MK name, he would use his normal name or a codename according to an informant's number, according to which he would be handled.

MR LAX: So it's just as conceivable that this name Scorpion that you remember so well, might actually be a new codename that he assumed once he decided to work for you.

MR VISSER: No, that is the name I remember from during the time of the interrogation, that is the name that I remembered.  I can't think of another name.

MR LAX: What I'm asking you is this, is it not possible that you're making a mistake and that this name Scorpion is in fact his new codename after he decided to work for you and that's the name that van Rooyen would have then used to refer to him as and you in your dealings with him thereafter would have used that name?  Is it not possible that you're mistaken, that this was his "Chimorenga" name that he would have used in the struggle, his nom de guerre, so to speak?

MR VISSER: Anything is possible, Mr Chair, I cannot remember precisely, it's 20 years ago that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, we understand that you cannot recall, but we just want to try to clear this up.  If I get a name of a person known among the ANC as Scorpion, then I would not take that informer and send him back with another name, I won't send him back to the ANC, you would use him under the same name that they know.  Why would he no longer be known as Scorpion?

MR VISSER: That's correct, Sir.

MR LAX: You see that's why I didn't understand your answer, because you said it wasn't normal to carry on using his ordinary name, his previous name, you said it wasn't normal for that to happen.  In my experience it's very normal, in fact in my experience all the askaris that I've ever known of used their original names that they had when they were MK people, so they wouldn't get confused.  That's why I didn't understand your answer and I emphasised it.

MR VISSER: I also didn't understand your question quite clearly, that is why we got confused.  I can't give a factual explanation regarding this.

MR LAX: Sorry, Mr Wills, we've stopped your examination for a long time.

MR WILLS: Just one issue, Mr Visser.  You're heard Mr Gold's testimony regarding the compartmentation of information in relation to the fact that when he was given an order by his immediate superior, who at the time was Mr van Zyl, that it wouldn't be proper for him in following the procedures at Security Branch, for him to ask questions about that and ask Visser who he got that order from.  Do you agree with that?

MR VISSER: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR WILLS: Just to be clear, it would be very uncommon for Gold to say in those circumstances to Visser, sorry to van Zyl, that "where did you get this order from, did you get this from Pretoria", he would just accept that and that would be common practice in the Security Branch.

MR VISSER: Yes, he would have accepted it as he got it.

MR WILLS: Yes.  And also, it would be uncommon for him to question that order in any regard whatsoever, is that not so?

MR VISSER: No, it doesn't as per normal, that people question such instructions.

MR WILLS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WILLS

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.