Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-18

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.

MS VAN DER WALT: May I just please clear something up with regard to what the Committee has asked?   Thank you.
	You were asked just now why you didn't arrest and prosecute him.  In view of that time, if he were now to be prosecuted and kept in detention and prosecuted - I'm not referring to Section 6 now, then his family would freely be allowed access to him, not so?

MR VISSER: Yes, it is.

MS VAN DER WALT: And if he were visited by people in jail, is it possible that information that he could have given them could have gone through to the ANC or not?

MR VISSER: Yes, it is possible.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: I see that on page 122 and 123, on 123 the date appears as 20 September '79, that deals with the assault on this person and on page 122, the date is not quite clear, but in that same - it looks like the same month, it also looks like September '79, there's a letter that says that he made a satisfactory statement and that he is released, recommended to be released.

MR VISSER: May I look at them?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: These letters were written by head office, Security Headquarters.  Starbuck(?) was at Security Headquarters, du Preez and the other one, Col Gloy(?) was also at Security Headquarters.  ...(transcriber's interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Who would have written to head office that this person had made a satisfactory statement and recommended that he be released?  Who would have done that?

MR VISSER: I believe it might have been the branch detaining him originally, or made a submission recommending a number 94 for presentation to the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You see it seems as if he then must have been interrogated by people from head office, such as du Preez, because du Preez is now asking for him to be released seeing that he had given a satisfactory statement.

MR VISSER: I don't think head office would have done the interrogation, head office must have had some or other letter before this before they would ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Now this person might have been Starbuck.

MR VISSER: Starbuck was also at head office and head office didn't do interrogations apparently.

MR LAX: You see this letter looks like it's from one part of headquarters, i.e. Security Branch Headquarters, to the Commissioner's office.  In other words, you have Security Branch HQ communicating with the Commissioner's office, which is a separate office.  And the question is, obviously at station level or at district level, you have somebody else who is actually compiling all these reports on detainees and on people, whether they're answering questions satisfactorily or not, because that was really the criterion around which people could be held, and once those reports are then sent, HQ on the one side, in its right-hand being the Security Branch, then speaks to the left-hand, being the Commissioner and they record all this information in writing.  Is that correct?

MR VISSER: Ja, Security Headquarters does liaise with the 94, the Commissioner of the South African Police, in the light of reports which he receives from various departments, Chairperson.  That is correct, liaison does take place.  They are in the same building, but it was two compartments of the South African Police.  ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR LAX: What would this reference number which is consistently throughout be, 140/79?  Oupa Madondo has got in brackets behind his name (140/79).  If you look at all the correspondence, the same number appears next to his name.

MR VISSER: That would be a detention number and so on, which is allocated to him.

MR LAX: In whose records though?  Would that be in the Security Branch Headquarters records or would it be ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: It would be in the Security Headquarters records.

CHAIRPERSON: On page 122 it is said
"Oupa Ronald Madondo (140/97) John Vorster Square Police cells."
So at that point he was detained at John Vorster.

MR VISSER: It would appear to be so, according to the letters, Chairperson.

MR LAX: If one looks then - just to confuse this even more, at page 124, which is the report from the magistrate, you see that he was being held at Jabulani at that stage, and he'd already been there for the whole month.  He was detained on the 13th of August, this is on the 28th of August that he is seen by the magistrate and at that stage he complains of assaults on him and so on and it's as a result of those complaints that a prosecution is then investigated.

MR VISSER: I am not aware of these complaints or detentions.

MR LAX: This chap that's referred to here in this thing, Grobbelaar - just let me make sure I've got the right name, ja, Grobbelaar, who was Grobbelaar, did he work under you?

MR VISSER: Yes, at that stage there was a Grobbelaar who worked at the Security Branch in Soweto.

MR LAX: Page 128 he says
"At Protea, Lt Grobbelaar asked me why I complained ..."
... and then down below there's another name, van Vuuren.  Was van Vuuren also under you?

MR VISSER: There was a van Vuuren at a stage, I don't know if he was there at that stage, but there was a van Vuuren attached to the Security Branch at some stage, Chairperson.

MR LAX: So these were people under your command, not under John Vorster Square, if they were the people who were questioning him.

MR VISSER: There were people attached to Security Branch, yes.

MR LAX: Yes.  And they were the ones questioning him.

CHAIRPERSON: No, van Vuuren called for a doctor.  He complained ...

MR LAX: All he says was that he'll telephone for a doctor, but the doctor never came.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAX: The point I'm making is, these are your subordinates, these are not John Vorster Square subordinates.  So this must have been under your purview and yet you have no recollection whatsoever.  Which is not surprising, bearing in mind how long ago it is.

MR VISSER: It is possible that these things did take place and that I don't recall the names, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.  Mr Visser, you are excused and it seems as if we will adjourn for the day.  Can we please start at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.

MR PRINSLOO: I would just like to mention that I have been requested to be in Pretoria tomorrow and that Louisa will take over my part if possible.