Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-18

MR LAX: The point is a simple one, Sir, and it's this - and I don't mean to be patronising or disrespectful, if the only Madondo you can remember is someone connected with Black Power, then either you are mistaken about this Madondo who is connected to the ANC and to MK and who was trained in Angola, or they might well be the same person and your memory's bothering you and it's just letting you down, in which case the Scorpion that you have in mind might well be the same person.  The point is, if your memory has let you down you're not in a position to admit or deny it and if you're already confused about one Madondo, who is the only Madondo you remember and you say you remember from reports, then clearly something is wrong and all you're really being asked is to concede that something's wrong and that your memory isn't as good as you might want to otherwise suggest it is and that the possibility therefore exists that they may well be the same person.  Because how can you be adamant in one sphere, which is clearly potentially wrong just on the facts before us?  Do you see my point?

MR VISSER: Can I just mention on other aspect?  This Madondo involved with Black Power operations in '76 could perhaps at a later stage have received military training, but I was not aware of that, that's why I'm saying that this man that I had to do with, Scorpion, is not identical to the Madondo that I knew as primarily a Black Power member.  That's what I'm trying to say.  If the name were mentioned to me, despite my bad memory, I might have been able to put the two together.

MR LAX: All I'm suggesting to you is, is the possibility no there that you're making a mistake and it's the same person, but because of the lapse of time from 1976 to 1980 and then from 1980 to now, you just haven't connected them all properly?

MR VISSER: That is a possibility I suppose, Mr Chairperson, that I am mistaken.

MS SAMUEL: The decision to in fact eliminate this person by the name of Scorpion or Ronald Madondo, did that decision come specifically from Brig Goosen or were both of you involved in that decision?

MR VISSER: It came from Brig Goosen.

ADV SANDI: But before Mr Goosen said the deceased should be eliminated in the light of the circumstances and information you had set out to him, did you initially suggest to him that because of the problem you had the deceased had to be killed?

MR VISSER: I wrote the report and explained to him the dangers of this man for us and the instruction to remove the man then came from him.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MS SAMUEL: Were any methods discussed as to how this man was to be eliminated?

MR VISSER: No, I discussed no methods.

MS SAMUEL: So did you then take it upon yourself that the manner in which he should be eliminated would be as described by the other applicants here?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MS SAMUEL: I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS SAMUEL

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR LAX: Can I just ...

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT

MR LAX: Colonel Visser, if one - sorry, Brigadier Visser, if one looks at page 130, that Oupa Madondo was being held at Jabulani Police cells in terms of Section 6(1) of the Terrorism Act.  Do you see that?

MR VISSER: Yes, I see it, Chairperson.

MR LAX: And therefore he would have come to your attention as Security Branch Head.

MR VISSER: Yes, he ought to have if my staff detained him.

MR LAX: And this Oupa Madondo left the country in 1978 and then came back in June '79, was arrested in Soweto and then there's a long story here, but it all vaguely ties in with the same person then referred to in inquiry that follows on page 132 onwards.  You can see that's a printout from your computer records, or what would have been Security Branch computer records.  So this man was arrested in Soweto, therefore you would have known about him.

MR VISSER: I'm not clear on this, when was this printout made, Chairperson?

MR LAX: Page 130.  If you look at the letter, this is permission to continue holding him in terms of Section 6 of the then Terrorism Act, and it's just an explanation of his activities.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we just look at that letter.  It's a letter written and signed on behalf of Brig du Preez.  Where was du Preez?

MR VISSER: He was at the head office.

CHAIRPERSON: And it's a letter that was sent back?

MR VISSER: No.

CHAIRPERSON: It is to the Commissioner of Police in Pretoria.

MR VISSER: That's correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: All they refer to here is that he was detained at the Jabulani Police cells.

MR VISSER: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And at the top it refers to Lt Hawkins, was he on your staff?

MR VISSER: He was also at head office, stationed at head office.

CHAIRPERSON: So this was correspondence between Security Head Office and the Commissioner of Police.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But it refers also to the fact that he was detained at the Jabulani Police cells.  Where are those cells?

MR VISSER: In Soweto, one of the suburbs of Soweto.

CHAIRPERSON: Did that fall under you?

MR VISSER: Soweto control area was in my control area, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you have known of everyone detained there?

MR VISSER: In general I did yes, but some people were detained at John Vorster and then I would not always know about them.

CHAIRPERSON: In this letter they say that arising from his arrest another four people were arrested.  They also allege that Madondo transported five people in Soweto and that he later declared that those people had undergone military training with him.  In June '78 he was found possession of a Makarov pistol.  In the light of the aforegoing and the fact that he could not give a satisfactory explanation of his movements the previous few years, the suspicion exists that he is a trained ANC terrorist who has much information on activities.  Then there is a request that he should kept in further detention.  It was sent by Security Head Office to the Commissioner.  Were you aware, or can you not remember, or do you not know of this detention in 1979?

MR VISSER: I am not aware of this, this is the first time that I've seen this letter, but it is possible that he may have been detained, that it might have happened.

CHAIRPERSON: If that is the case, then it is possible that the person that you later got to know as Scorpion, could possibly be this person and who received training in the meantime.

MR VISSER: Sir, I can still not put the two together.  As I have already said, Scorpion that I had to do with was via Western Transvaal, he was arrested in Western Transvaal and then handed to me for interrogation because he went from Soweto to the Western Transvaal.

CHAIRPERSON: But why can't it be the same person?

MR VISSER: I can't explain that.

CHAIRPERSON: Because the original person that you knew also came from Soweto.

MR VISSER: Yes, he did.

MR LAX: You see unless you can give us some reason why your distinction in your mind is so clear, then how do we rely on that feeling that you have that it's just different?

MR VISSER: It's just a feeling that I have, Chairperson, that the one person is not identical to the other one, according to my memory, and I cannot explain it.  ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR LAX: No, I hear you.  Thanks, Chair.
	I just have one question that was puzzling me.  Was it usual for van Rooyen to come to your house to discuss something like this, why didn't he discuss it with you at the office?

MR VISSER: They could contact me at home if something happened after hours and if it were essential to talk to me.

MR LAX: And you don't remember how you addressed this man during the 12 to 14 hours he spent in your company from Klerkskraal, to the time he was killed?

MR VISSER: I can't remember calling him by any name, I just spoke to him as a person sitting behind me in the vehicle, I didn't call him a specific name.