Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-18

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)