JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Chairperson, I call the following applicant who is Mr Schalk Jan Visser.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, what language would you prefer to speak?
MR VISSER: Preferably Afrikaans please, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, do you have any objection to taking the oath?
SCHALK JAN VISSER: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Visser, your application can be found in the bundle before the Committee. The formal application is from page 98 to 100, and the incident for which you request amnesty, appears from page 101 to 102.
MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And the political motivation is from page 103 to 110.
MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Visser, you have heard the evidence given by Messrs Deetlefs and Pienaar, could you tell the Honourable Committee, at that stage what was your rank and where were you stationed?
MR VISSER: I was a Brigadier in the South African Police and I served as the Divisional Commander of Division Eastern Transvaal.
MS VAN DER WALT: And your base?
MR VISSER: My base was Middelburg.
MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. And you then also confirm the evidence of Mr Deetlefs with regard to the manner in which he contacted you from Swaziland.
MR VISSER: Yes, I confirm this.
MS VAN DER WALT: According to Mr Deetlefs you then extended permission that Mr Sedibe be abducted, is that correct?
MR VISSER: Yes, that is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: What was your motivation for this?
MR VISSER: I was aware that the person who had been arrested by the Swazi Police could possibly be deported to Zambia and that he could have provided valuable information regarding landmine explosions that we had experienced in that area during that period. Furthermore, I also found that he had fulfilled a senior role within the ANC structure, particularly pertaining the Transvaal machinery.
MS VAN DER WALT: There is something that I would like for you to explain to the Honourable Committee. Mr Deetleffs in terms of a question which was put by the Honourable Chairperson, provided a response and the question was
"What would have happened to Mr Sedibe if after his abduction he had refused to cooperate?"
... and his response was that in terms of Section 29, he could have been detained for six months in order to attempt to obtain his cooperation, but it appears that Mr Sedibe was indeed placed under Section 29 detention.
MR VISSER: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: And Mr Deetlefs stated that he provided his cooperation after the abduction, what was the reason then for his detention in terms of Section 29?
MR VISSER: This particular person was a trained MK member and the detention was for the purposes of the safeguarding of person who were suspected of transgressions against the State, and we enjoyed the authority to put them under such detention.
MS VAN DER WALT: But if he had given his cooperation, why was it necessary?
MR VISSER: I don't think that any person in their right mind would have considered the immediate movement of a person who had been involved in such activities for so many years, without placing some form of restriction in the form of detention on this person.
CHAIRPERSON: For what purpose?
MR VISSER: Safeguarding. So that he would remain available, so that he would not escape again or disappear once more and rejoin the ranks of the ANC - in order to remove him from the process.
CHAIRPERSON: Why wasn't it possible to detain him under regular law?
MR VISSER: Section 29 is a specific security legislation which enabled me to detain such a person and to interrogate such a person.
CHAIRPERSON: Was that the objective?
MR VISSER: Yes, that was the objective.
MS VAN DER WALT: If I have understood Mr Pienaar's evidence correctly, he stated that although Mr Sedibe cooperated, it was necessary to test the circumstances and his attitude.
MR VISSER: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: Because it was also a fact that Mr Sedibe was a well-trained MK cadre who had enjoyed training in Eastern Germany and in Russia.
MR VISSER: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, among all these persons who may have been involved in the abduction, whether they were in Swaziland or here, where did you fit into the hierarchy?
MR VISSER: I was the commander of the particular region in which their activities with regard to Intelligence collection resided.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on. The speaker's microphone is not on.
CHAIRPERSON: ... who was in command of that group of persons?
MR VISSER: The group within Swaziland?
CHAIRPERSON: No, those who were also involved in the entire operation.
MR VISSER: I was the senior member and in Swaziland, Col de Kock would be the following senior and after that, Col Deetlefs.
CHAIRPERSON: Regardless of what they did there, they had to report to you?
MR VISSER: Yes, they had to liaise to me.
MS VAN DER WALT: And just with regard to that point, you decided yourself to give the order for the abduction, you did not contact head office prior to the abduction taking place?
MR VISSER: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: And if I understand it correctly, it was a matter or urgency.
MR VISSER: Yes, it was a matter of urgency, I did not know until when this man would be available.
MS VAN DER WALT: Was the Security Head Office of the police informed of his abduction after it took place?
MR VISSER: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: This abduction, you have just stated what your motivation was, could you explain to the Honourable Committee whether it was of national interest for him to be abducted?
MR VISSER: I was convinced that it was of national interest in order to combat terrorism as well as the landmine and bomb explosions and then so doing, save the lives of people.
CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it more correct to say that it was in the interests of the government of that time instead of the interests of the nation?
MR VISSER: It was the government that I served at that stage and I believed that it was of national interest for the inhabitants of our country, who would be the persons who would be injured or affected by landmine explosions.
MS VAN DER WALT: At that stage, this was during 1986, there were many landmine explosions in the Eastern Transvaal.
MR VISSER: Yes, that is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: And the orders or at least the instructions for these landmine explosions, came from the Transvaal machinery, from Swaziland.
MR VISSER: Yes, they were the final issuers of the orders.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, I assume that you had many opportunities to work with these landmine explosions and to arrest the persons who had brought in these devices, isn't that so?
MR VISSER: In the past I had arrested persons who had been involved with landmine incidents.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you a position to tell us why they were planting bombs?
MR VISSER: I believe that it was part of the policy of the organisation, the African National Congress, which waged a military struggle against the former dispensation in order to achieve some form of a takeover.
CHAIRPERSON: Would you agree that it was a struggle against apartheid?
MR VISSER: I would say that it was a struggle against the dispensation of that time, which followed the policy of apartheid, but it was a legal government at that stage.
MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Visser, did you see Mr Sedibe directly after he was brought over the border?
MR VISSER: I did.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you have any discussion with him?
MR VISSER: Yes, I did.
MS VAN DER WALT: And what was his reaction towards you?
MR VISSER: He was quite pleasant and I found him rather interesting. We didn't have a lengthy discussion, but he appeared to be relaxed.
MS VAN DER WALT: During his Section 29 detention, was he detained at one specific place only or was he taken to different places where various people interrogated him?
MR VISSER: He was taken to various places where members from other branches would also interrogate him with regard to information that he could give or had given.
MS VAN DER WALT: That would be the Security Branches?
MR VISSER: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you didn't have any knowledge regarding an assault on Mr Sedibe in Swaziland?
MR VISSER: No, I did not know about it.
MS VAN DER WALT: Was Mr Sedibe ever assaulted in your presence?
MR VISSER: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you see that he had sustained injuries?
MR VISSER: I cannot imagine that I saw any serious injuries on his person.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm not referring to serious injuries.
MR VISSER: Well I cannot imagine any specific injury.
CHAIRPERSON: There has been evidence that he was injured.
MR VISSER: Yes, I've heard the evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Would you dispute the evidence?
MR VISSER: I cannot dispute it.
CHAIRPERSON: Is a question of you having forgotten about it or didn't you see it?
MR VISSER: I didn't really pay attention to it or notice it.
CHAIRPERSON: Well let us accept that these injuries were there, that any person may have been able to notice injuries on Mr Sedibe, why wouldn't you have asked how these injuries came to be?
MR VISSER: That is why I said I cannot imagine that I saw any serious injuries or injuries of any such nature on his person and that is why I would not have asked any such questions pertaining to the injuries.
CHAIRPERSON: Even though they were not serious injuries, you were the head of the group and you had to take decisions and you took decisions without contacting head office because it was a matter of urgency, why didn't you ask why the man was injured and what was going on?
MR VISSER: As I've already stated, I did notice any specific injuries, I cannot recall that I saw any specific injuries. When I spoke to him he was reasonably relaxed and he did not complain of having been assaulted, to me.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you ever heard anybody who had been arrested in the Security Police, complain about anything?
MNR VISSER: "Wel ek weet baie mense kla, Voorsitter."
MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Visser, you are applying for amnesty for the abduction of Mr Sedibe from Swaziland to the Republic, is that correct?
MR VISSER: Yes, that is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: And any other offence which emanate therefrom, as well as any delict?
MR VISSER: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: Nothing further, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt, what is your objective with the other charges?
MS VAN DER WALT: Is that the assaults and the ...?
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)
MS VAN DER WALT: I did not personally take up the argument, this was done by Mr Visser. I cannot exactly recall, I think it was before Judge Wilson where the argument was held that the Attorney-General who possibly, if a dossier was placed before him, there may be other charges which might emanate from the abduction of which we are not aware of at this stage and that is why it has to be put. We were of the opinion that the Honourable Committee should make such a decision that the act which was committed, for example murder or abduction and any other charges which might emanate from that incident and any delictual responsibility.
ADV BOSMAN: Ms van der Walt, we are not dealing with argument here at the moment, but it has been expressly put by the applicant that he did not participate or approve of any assaults and if we should grant such a request that there is amnesty for any other which might emanate from it, then we will be granting amnesty for something that was specifically denied here. But maybe it might be something you might address us on in argument.
CHAIRPERSON: Let me assist you.
Mr Visser, you gave instructions that this person be abducted, you must have heard that the possibility exists, is that not so? You knew that violence would be used.
MR VISSER: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And you agreed with that?
MR VISSER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So if there were any assaults, then you are just as guilty and that has to be included in your amnesty application, is that not so?
MR VISSER: I believe in the greater picture it would be so.
CHAIRPERSON: So do you then make such an application in this regard?
MR VISSER: I do so yes, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: You were not inside Swaziland?
MR VISSER: No, I was not.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Thank you, Chairperson.
Brigadier, with regard to procedures which were applicable with regard to control and command, is it correct that when - let us be specific, when the Vlakplaas contingency moved down to your area they resorted under your command and control.
MR VISSER: Overhead under my command, yes.
MR HUGO: And what happened in effect in this regard is that you received information from Deetlefs, you weighed up the information and evaluated it and on the strength thereof you took a decision, an informed decision that an operation be launched and the men would be sent through.
MR VISSER: That's correct.
MR HUGO: And you then conveyed this instruction and heard that Mr de Kock was there and then you gave instruction that he become part of the operation.
MR VISSER: That's correct.
MR HUGO: And you did not expect of him to oppose the instruction or question it?
MR VISSER: No, Chairperson.
MR HUGO: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Visser, did you yourself inform head office after the decision?
MR VISSER: Yes, I did.
MR LAMEY: Can we make a reasonable assumption that head office and its different branches, its different C branches, C2 and so forth, would have had information of this abduction?
MR VISSER: Yes, they would have and above all they would have had the motivation for the Section 29 detention.
MR LAMEY: We can make the assumption that C2 which dealt with the identification of - detention or the questioning of detainees and the identification of other possible MK members in the country by means of the photo album, would have been interested from that point to gleam information from him.
MNR VISSER: "Dis korrek, Voorsitter".
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?
MR PRINSLOO: No questions, thank you Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LEOPENG: Thank you, Chairman.
Mr Visser, after Mr Sedibe was brought to South Africa, at Piet Retief, after how long did you visit him on his arrival?
MR VISSER: That last time I saw him was not very long after he entered South Africa. He was at the safehouse that was used in Piet Retief when I visited him and had discussions with him.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, you may use Afrikaans, it will be interpreted. I did not get your answer.
MR VISSER: It was not after he was brought into the country that I visited him at the house in Piet Retief that was used as a safehouse, where I held discussions with him.
CHAIRPERSON: How long did you speak to him?
MR VISSER: I did not remain there for too long, it was only a few minutes that I was on the premises where he was present.
CHAIRPERSON: What concerns me, you made a decision without head office and I do understand why. A man was abducted from another country, that in itself is an issue. You then took the decision that here was a person who, according to your evidence, would have important information and you also had the objective of turning him in order for him to cooperate with you, you also wanted to make him into an askari. As the person who would have taken the final decision about this, why did you yourself not hold all those interviews with him?
MR VISSER: I appraised myself that the man was indeed in the RSA, that he had indeed arrived and I had confidence in the branch commander at Piet Retief and at Ermelo, to undertake the necessary questioning of the man.
CHAIRPERSON: That is one thing. I don't know how common this was, but I would say it was uncommon, here was a person who was a candidate for becoming an askari, were you not interested therein? - because of the fact that you were the person who had taken the decision about this?
MR VISSER: I was indeed interested, Chairperson, but I had confidence that the information that he had available to him would come to my knowledge eventually.
CHAIRPERSON: I do understand that, but I speak your satisfaction that this was indeed a good candidate to become an askari.
MR VISSER: The aspect of turning him into an askari was not in my mind at that stage, Chairperson, it is a possibility that came about later.
CHAIRPERSON: Because I was given the impression - I hope I am correct, that this was the actual objective of the abduction. ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR VISSER: No, I wanted to question the man and gain information from him in order to effectively combat terrorism within the country.
CHAIRPERSON: So the story that he would become an askari, when did this come about for the first time?
MR VISSER: It was decided by head office that he should be taken and be applied as a possible askari.
CHAIRPERSON: Deetlefs contacted you from Swaziland.
MR VISSER: I was his immediate commander.
CHAIRPERSON: Did he contact you?
MR VISSER: Yes, he did.
CHAIRPERSON: And he informed you that this man was arrested in Swaziland.
MR VISSER: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR LEOPENG: What did he tell you?
MR VISSER: That according to our intelligence reports this man had much available with regard to the activities of the ANC within the RSA.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it never mentioned to you that he would be a good candidate for becoming an askari?
MR VISSER: At that stage I did not consider it.
CHAIRPERSON: I do not ask what you consider, I ask what was put to you.
MR VISSER: It was a possibility that had existed, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Did Deetlefs tell you that this person could possibly become an askari?
MR VISSER: He did not specifically tell me that this man was going to become an askari.
CHAIRPERSON: May I ask you as follows. What do you say of the statement that he makes that when he had the idea of abducting this man, it was primarily to gain his cooperation, that he would work for the South African Police? Are you surprised?
MR VISSER: That was the objective, to convince him to supply information and work along with the South African Police, that was the primary task.
CHAIRPERSON: When?
MR VISSER: During the abduction.
CHAIRPERSON: But you are saying that the aspect that he would become an askari came about during the course of time, not when he was abducted, that's what you've just said.
MR VISSER: That is what I say. I still say that the askari issue came about later, he could have been used otherwise, not only as an askari.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if my Afrikaans is so bad that you
do not understand me, but Deetlefs told us that when he arrived there he was informed that this man had been arrested and at that stage he formulated the idea in his own mind that this person who had been arrested, would be a good candidate for becoming an askari, he knew the workings of the ANC and he had much information. That is what he testified.
MR VISSER: I did not hear that, Chairperson. He said that he would be a candidate for becoming an askari and because of his command amongst the MK members in Swaziland who were infiltrating into the country, he had much information.
CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand your evidence correctly then, when you received the call from Deetlefs while he was still in Swaziland and before the abduction, you were of the impression that this person would be abducted just to give information, at that stage, and later the idea of him becoming an askari came about?
MR VISSER: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that your evidence?
MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Visser, do I therefore understand your evidence pointedly to mean that there is a distinction between a person who would ordinarily provide information and a person who would provide information and further be turned as an askari?
MR VISSER: Unfortunately I cannot hear you.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Are you properly tuned, Mr Visser?
MR VISSER: I can hear you, yes.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I wanted to know if I would be correct in comprehending your evidence briefly as saying you draw a distinction between a person who would be abducted with a view of providing invaluable information for purposes of you resisting the struggle against the ANC, and a person who would provide such information and later on be turned as an askari?
MR VISSER: Both persons would have to be turned, Chairperson. The one who would be applied under cover to work within the intelligence community and the other one who would openly work with, let us say Vlakplaas persons, as an askari, but both would have to turned and be convinced to cooperate with us.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So there would still be that important ingredient of cooperation that you will have to solicit from the person who is not defined as an askari, but who nevertheless is formally an MK activist but is now working in cooperation with the police.
MR VISSER: I could not follow you there, would you please repeat that.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I'm trying to find out your definition of a person who is an askari and a person who is enjoying the cooperation - whom you are enjoying his cooperation, but who is not an askari.
MR VISSER: A person who is an askari moves around freely with, for example, Vlakplaas' people, they had control of the askaris and the other person who would for example say at Middelburg Branch, could be convinced to cooperate and would then gain information under cover and would be of assistance to me. That is the difference that I see, Chairperson.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And at the time when you spoke to Mr Deetlefs, your primary objective was to get invaluable information from Mr Sedibe.
MR VISSER: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And you say the notion of turning him into an askari had not yet entered your mind.
MR VISSER: Not at that specific stage, Chairperson.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So the cooperation that Mr Deetleffs has referred to, in your understanding would be the cooperation that merely sought to get information that is invaluable, from Mr Sedibe.
MR VISSER: Yes, correct, Chairperson, with the later possibility of further application or other applications, as just the supplying of information.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, thank you.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Visser, what is nor entirely clear to me is, when would you decide, on what basis would you decide that this person has to be turned into an askari or he would just work under cover at the branch for you? What was the basis for such a decision?
MR VISSER: It would depend on the orientation and the motivation and the convincing of the person. That would make one decide where he would be applied and what his potential was for application, Chairperson.
ADV BOSMAN: In other words, did an askari have a broader application as a person who worked under cover?
MR VISSER: He had a broader spectrum, he could work right throughout the country.
ADV BOSMAN: So what qualities did he have to have? What qualities did Mr Sedibe had that could make an askari of him?
MR VISSER: He was an intelligent person, he was well-trained, he had the knowledge surrounding the activities of the ANC, the banned ANC at that stage.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.
MR LEOPENG: Thank you, Chairman.
Coming back to my question once again, roughly can you estimate how long did you visit him after he arrived in South Africa? The days, was it after four days, was it the same day?
MR VISSER: It was the same day when he arrived in the RSA that I saw him, Chairperson.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Is it not the same night, Mr Visser? Was it not the same night as opposed to the same day?
MR VISSER: I saw him during the day, Chairperson.
MR LEOPENG: Did he indicate to cooperate at that stage, according to your opinion?
MR VISSER: He did not specifically give me an indication, but he appeared relaxed and while I spoke to him I did not notice any antagonism on his part.
MR LEOPENG: When you saw him at that house, where he was housed, did you notice him being handcuffed?
MR VISSER: I cannot recall at that stage. He was in a room, I cannot recall whether he was cuffed at that stage.
MR LEOPENG: But there's evidence to the effect that he was handcuffed, what do you say about it? And you saw him, isn't it?
MR VISSER: Will you please repeat the question, I could not hear exactly what you were saying.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, I think you should keep that thing on.
MR LEOPENG: I'm saying there was evidence before this Committee that he was handcuffed when he arrived at the house where he was housed.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, I did not see him when he arrived at the house, when I spoke to him he was in the room, he was standing up and as far as I can imagine he was not cuffed at that stage.
MR LEOPENG: There was evidence further that during his abduction there was a cut on his nose which was visible, did you notice that cut on his nose?
MR VISSER: It is possible that there was a cut, Chairperson, although I cannot imagine that I did observe it.
MR LEOPENG: So you can't dispute that there was a cut on his nose?
MR VISSER: No, I cannot dispute it.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, how many times was a similar operation conducted under your control?
MR VISSER: Similar or arrests?
CHAIRPERSON: Operations during which persons were abducted.
MR VISSER: Abductions would amount to one or two occasions.
VOORSITTER: "So dit is nie 'n ding wat gewoonlik gebeur het nie"?
MR VISSER: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Is there a case that you may be confusing with this case?
MR VISSER: No, I recall this particular incident.
CHAIRPERSON: Because every time that any questions are aimed at the question of injuries, it would appear to me that you do not recall.
MR VISSER: My recollection does not permit me to tell this Committee specifically that I did indeed see injuries. It is possible, I concede that he may have been injured, but I cannot imagine this. I cannot recall that I saw these injuries specifically.
CHAIRPERSON: Is there any particular reason for that?
MR VISSER: The incident took place a long time ago, Chairperson, and there was an abduction, possibly I accepted that the man may have incurred bumps and bruises should he have resisted during the abduction, but I didn't notice any specific injuries.
CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, was it the policy of the Security Police to apply violence in order to obtain information from subjects?
MR VISSER: Not with regard to me.
CHAIRPERSON: The reason why I ask is that if it was so, it would have been a custom for injuries to be observable, but you didn't pay any attention to it because it was a custom. But here we have a case of a prisoner and a policeman and it would be obvious that this should be something that the policeman should be concerned about.
MR VISSER: If I had noticed anything I would said something. I concede that there may have been injuries, but I cannot recall these injuries and that if he did have injuries I would not be able to say exactly where these injuries were situated. That is the problem, my recollection does not permit me to recall.
CHAIRPERSON: It was probably minor if it existed.
MR VISSER: Yes, if there were injuries they could not have been very serious, his face would have had to be completely cut up for me to notice this.
MR LEOPENG: Did you ask the team which abducted him from Swaziland how was his reaction when he was abducted, whether he fought with them, whether he resisted abduction?
MR VISSER: It was mentioned to me by the way that the had resisted and that he was taken from Swaziland by means of violence.
MR LEOPENG: Was he assaulted when he was taken by force?
MR VISSER: I don't know if one would be able to describe this as assault, but violence was applied to abduct him.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, if the abduction was illegal, then everything that occurred thereafter would be illegal, because the abduction per se is illegal.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.
MR LEOPENG: Were you told that he was assaulted on his way from Swaziland to the border, in the vehicle?
MR VISSER: Nobody told me this specifically.
MR LEOPENG: May you turn to page 102 of the bundle, paragraph 4 thereof
"Sedibe was brought to the RSA safely"
Why do you say that?
MR VISSER: The mere fact ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I didn't get the question.
MR LEOPENG: May I rephrase the question. According to this paragraph, the first sentence you said
"Mr Sedibe was safely brought to South Africa"
Is that correct?
MR VISSER: All that I meant there is that the man was taken and brought to the RSA, where he was in detention, or placed in detention.
MR LEOPENG: I don't understand. When you say he was brought into South Africa safely, what did you mean?
MR VISSER: He was alive. He was brought to the RSA alive and I had discussions with him, he wasn't killed under way to South Africa, he was not murdered, he was safe and alive and brought to South Africa in that condition in order to be applied according to the initial plan.
CHAIRPERSON: Therefore, if he had been injured, would he still have been safe?
MR VISSER: Yes, I believe so.
MR LEOPENG: You said you took part in interrogating him, is that correct?
MR VISSER: I did not participate in an intense interrogation, I merely had a discussion with him and drew the inference that he was completely relaxed, or at least he appeared to be completely relaxed.
MR LEOPENG: Did he at some stage go through an intensive interrogation as you said?
MR VISSER: Yes, he was interrogated, among others by Mr Pienaar and I also believe that Col Deetlefs interrogated him. Along with other branches from head office, C2 would also have interrogated him and wanted him to conduct identifications.
MR LEOPENG: And if I understand you correctly, there's a division between a discussion and intensive interrogation. You had a discussion with him whereas Mr Pienaar had an intensive interrogation with him, is that correct?
MR VISSER: I assume it is as Mr Pienaar testified, that he took him from his cells that morning and took him to the office and interrogated him with regard to information pertaining to the ANC and any further plans, which could be expected.
MR LEOPENG: How is an interrogation conducted, is there any force which is used? - to induce him to divulge the information or is it just a normal discussion between man and man?
MR VISSER: As far as I know it is a man-to-man discussion in an office, there is a discussion between the interviewer and the subject.
CHAIRPERSON: You had very little to do with this person, is that correct?
MR VISSER: That is correct, I had very little to do with this person.
CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, ultimately I understand that he became an askari.
MR VISSER: Yes, I saw him after he became an askari, he was at my office.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you tell us whether any force or coercion was applied to render him an askari?
MR VISSER: Not as far as I know.
MR LEOPENG: Are you in any position to give evidence or to testify to that?
MR VISSER: I don't have any personal knowledge thereof, but as far as I know no force or coercion was used.
CHAIRPERSON: That is what you have said but we know today that many lies were told by the police collectively, but you personally cannot tell us whether or not any coercion was applied in order to make that man turn into an askari.
MR VISSER: No, I cannot.
MR LEOPENG: There will be evidence to the effect that Mr Sedibe was tortured during the interrogation, so that he can divulge information. What do you say about it?
MR VISSER: I do not know about that.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: May I interpose, Mr Leopeng.
After Mr Sedibe had been brought to the RSA, did you give any specific instructions that during his interrogation by the many members of the various sections, he was not to be assaulted?
MR VISSER: That was standing policy, that persons should not be assaulted while they were being interrogated.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Are you sure, Mr Visser? We have heard countless evidence before this Committee, of people being abducted and interrogated by using force.
MR VISSER: But I did not issue any specific instructions in this regard and as far as I could determine later, especially with regard to the relationship between the man and Mr Pienaar, no violence was ever used against him.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Did you ever make any attempt to find out from Mr Pienaar for instance, who seemed to have conducted quite an intensive interrogation of Mr Sedibe, whether any violence had been used by him on the subject he was interrogating?
MR VISSER: I did not specifically, but I believe that I would have been informed if it had been necessary to use violence against the man.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: When you gave an approval for Mr Sedibe's abduction in Swaziland, did you specifically give an order that force was not to be used during his abduction?
MR VISSER: I may have mentioned by the way that the man had to be oriented, that he had to be approached in such a fashion that would make it possible to obtain the information from him, but I do not recall that I issued any specific instructions in regard to this. I basically sent the message that we should try to win him over so that he could be of assistance in providing us with the information regarding the ANC, its structures and its activities.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you, Mr Leopeng.
MR LEOPENG: Thank you, Chairman.
Lastly, Mr Pienaar testified that he personally observed some bruises on the body of Mr Sedibe, what do you say about it?
MR VISSER: It is possible, Chairperson, I did not notice anything like that specifically. He was clothed when I was there, in either event.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: May I interpose, Mr Leopeng.
Mr Visser, what I find quite disturbing is that you have been able to observe Mr Sedibe to an extent of concluding that he was in a relaxed fashion, but during your observation you have not been able to see a bruise which we have heard from the evidence of Mr Deetlefs, that is was quite an apparent bruise on his nose. Your observation must have entailed you looking at his face for quite some time to have come to such a conclusion that he was in a relaxed fashion. Is it conceivable that you cannot recall an obvious bruise which was on his noise, as we have heard previously in the evidence of Mr Deetlefs?
MR VISSER: All that I'm trying to say, Chairperson, is that my memory permits me to state specifically whether there was an injury or if there was such an injury, where it would have been, how it would have been. There may have been such an injury, but I cannot recall this. If the others who worked with him say that there were injuries, I would accept that, I would not dispute it, but my recollection does not permit me to say pertinently whether or not there were injuries and if so, where these injuries were situated.
CHAIRPERSON: What would you have done if you had noticed any injuries?
MR VISSER: I would have asked what had happened.
CHAIRPERSON: Who would you have asked?
MR VISSER: The persons who had conducted the abduction and then they would possibly have given me a reasonable explanation.
ADV BOSMAN: Are you trying to tell us that you may have asked, but that you cannot recall?
MR VISSER: I cannot recall that I asked about the injuries.
ADV BOSMAN: You have used the phrase "I cannot imagine" quite often, are you trying to say that you don't really have a very clear picture of what took place there? Do I understand you correctly?
MR VISSER: Yes, because the incident took place several years ago and my memory does not allow me to recall such fine details of the incident.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.
MR LEOPENG: Chairman, just a last question.
Before the abduction of Mr Sedibe, did you have any form of abduction of an MK, high-ranking official of the MK? - before the abduction of Mr Sedibe.
MR VISSER: No, Chairperson.
MR LEOPENG: Did you have interrogations of MK cadres before the interrogation of Mr Sedibe?
MR VISSER: I had conducted interrogations, yes, Chairperson.
MR LEOPENG: Did they just cooperate without force being used on them? Did they just - members of the MK, did they just cooperate voluntarily?
MR VISSER: As far as I know the MK members were trained that should they be arrested they would cooperate and provide satisfactory information or as much information as what they could afford. But that was part of their training, to not resist but to offer apparent cooperation.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: How are you able to know that information, Mr Visser? That if an MK cadre is arrested he has to offer his cooperation and not to resist.
MR VISSER: Many interrogations have been conducted in the process, I spent 25 years with the Security Police and some of the person who had arrested cadres managed to uncover these facts.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So in your experience not much force was used when interrogating arrested MK operatives? And Sedibe is also a case in point.
MR VISSER: That is correct.
MR LEOPENG: No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LEOPENG
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
Mr Visser, we've heard evidence that initially the abduction was supposed to made to look as if the ANC had conducted the abduction, or had been involved in the release of Mr Sedibe from the Swaziland Police Station. Do you bear any knowledge of this?
MR VISSER: I was not involved in the planning of the abduction and the discussions that had taken place about it and from that viewpoint, it could have been planned, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Okay. And then also, you are no doubt aware that the Nerston incident in which other activists were allegedly killed, took place during the same time, a day or two after or before, not so?
MR VISSER: I am aware of it, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: We've heard evidence here that a story had gone out that Mr Sedibe was in fact the one responsible for handing over those persons who were killed, to the Security Police. Do you bear any knowledge of that?
MR VISSER: I do not know of any such story, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Okay. Regarding the weapon that was taken from the Swaziland Police, the G3 rifle, we've heard - I believe it was Mr Pienaar who said that the weapon was eventually returned to the police, the Swazi Police, do you bear any knowledge of that?
MR VISSER: I don't know whether the firearm was given back, Chairperson. I doubt whether it would have been done.
MS PATEL: Why do you say that?
MR VISSER: The mere fact that it be handed over would be an admission that the South African Police was involved in illegal actions in Swaziland. And it is possible that there could be some confusion with regard to this.
MS PATEL: You say that you didn't spend too long in the room with Mr Sedibe when you had this discussion as opposed to an interrogation with him. Can you give us an indication as to more-or-less how long, was it an hour, two hours, three hours that you were in the room with him?
MR VISSER: It was minutes, Chairperson, because I had other duties and other responsibilities within that division and I could not spend much time there. I just had to confirm for myself that the operation had been conducted and that he had arrived in the RSA safely and then I left the questioning and further action to the branch members.
MS PATEL: Who else was in the room at the time that you were there, besides Mr Sedibe obviously?
MR VISSER: I assume - I think Mr Pienaar could have been there and possibly one of the Vlakplaas members. There were not many people in that room.
MS PATEL: Sorry, I didn't get the last bit, you said Mr Pienaar and who else?
MR VISSER: Some of the Vlakplaas contingent. But there were not many people in that room, it was not full.
MS PATEL: Are you absolutely certain that you only spent a few minutes there?
MR VISSER: Correct, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: The reason I ask you this is because when I asked Mr Pienaar yesterday who would be in charge of the interrogation, or of Mr Sedibe during the time that he was at Piet Retief, was it him or Mr Deetlefs or who would be the senior person and if I remember correctly, his response to me was that well, when you were there you would be in charge because you were the senior person. The inference I draw from that was that you would then have been there for longer than just a few minutes. What is your comment on that?
MS VAN DER WALT: May I just convey my view of the evidence, it was that Mr Pienaar testified and said that he was in command, but as soon as a person with a senior rank was there, then that person would be in command. For example, Mr Visser. I don't think he specifically testified that Mr Visser conducted the interrogation, I think he explained how the rank structure worked. But if I understood his evidence correctly, he was in command of Mr Sedibe.
CHAIRPERSON: If the answer was that Mr X was in command or in control of the interrogation, what does it mean?
MR VISSER: It is ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, the question is to the Advocate.
MS VAN DER WALT: With respect, Chairperson, he said that he was in command, Sedibe was placed under his command for purposes of the interrogation, but he said that if a senior person arrived who could conduct interrogations, there were people from C1 and C2, and if that person was a senior that person would be in command. There was no direct evidence that Brig Visser was in command of the interrogation, it was an explanation of the rank structure.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, is it your case or your question that during any period that Mr Visser would have been present at the interrogation, that he would have been in command of the interrogation?
MS PATEL: Yes, that is correct, Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Then I'm not too sure there's anything different.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So if I understand what you are saying, Ms Patel, and what Mrs van der Walt is saying, during the ten minutes that he allegedly spoke to Mr Sedibe, or he interrogated Mr Sedibe, whatever word you would choose to use in relation to that discussion, he then would have been in command of that situation. Which is not much different from the evidence as correctly pointed out by Mrs van der Walt, of Mr Pienaar.
MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, perhaps we are splitting hairs here. My understanding however of Mr Pienaar's evidence yesterday was that just in terms of -I believe the way I phrased the question and the way in which he responded, I got the distinct impression that Mr Visser would at least have been there for longer than just a few minutes, because it was a question of who would generally have been in control of Mr Sedibe at the time. I take it no further than that.
CHAIRPERSON: Any more questions, Ms Patel?
MS PATEL: I'm almost through, Honourable Chairperson. Thank you.
Can you recall, Mr Visser, if Mr Nofomela was present at the place in Piet Retief where Mr Sedibe was being held?
MR VISSER: I cannot recall, I do not know all the Vlakplaas members personally, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Alright. Do you recall whether there were any black members present there when you went?
MR VISSER: There were some black members there, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Did you say some?
MR VISSER: Yes, there was.
MS PATEL: Alright. You say he wasn't bound to the bed when you got there ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, he wasn't cuffed.
MR VISSER: That's correct, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: And according to your recollection his eye wasn't swollen shut either.
MR VISSER: I cannot imagine that I observed it, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Alright. Honourable Chairperson, if you would just grant me a moment please. Sorry, just one final thing.
Did Mr Deetlefs report back to you before he went to Swaziland, after the incident? After Sedibe was abducted an brought to Piet Retief, did he then report back to you?
MR VISSER: I saw him as well. After I saw Sedibe there at Piet Retief, he was also in the vicinity there, on the premises there.
MS PATEL: No, my question is, did he make a report to you about the incident, about what had happened?
MR VISSER: Yes, he reported that - he reported what the action was.
MS PATEL: Is he the one - sorry, I speak under correction here, but you were not aware of the assault that had taken place in Swaziland?
MR VISSER: It was not specifically mentioned to me in detail.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But wasn't it your evidence that you were told that he had been taken by force?
MR VISSER: Yes, that's correct Chairperson, but nobody specifically mentioned it to me. It was only mentioned that they had to use force to get him away. As the Honourable Chairperson said, if force is used then it is assault and I accept it as such.
MS PATEL: And did he at any stage report to you that Mr Sedibe was giving his full cooperation almost immediately?
MR VISSER: Not at that stage, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: And at any other stage?
MR VISSER: Later with the interrogation and through the course of time it became clear that Mr Sedibe was indeed cooperating.
MS PATEL: Can you recall how long after his abduction it was told to you that he was cooperating?
MR VISSER: It could have been weeks thereafter, it could have been a few days thereafter when I liaised with the persons and they said that the man was positive and progress was good.
MS PATEL: But it doesn't help to speculate, so I'll take it no further. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson, just a singular aspect.
You several times upon questions from the Honourable Committee you said that your memory does not allow you to recall it, is that correct?
MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Did you in later years after the
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you in later years after the incident have a brain operation?
MS VAN DER WALT: And was a tumour removed?
MR VISSER: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: And did you have problems after the operation with your memory?
MR VISSER: Yes, I did, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And even today?
MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Visser, just something that troubles me. It is not clear to me if you are trying to tell us that violence did not play a role in the questioning of the Security Police in general. What are you trying to tell us, are you trying to tell us that violence did not play a role in the interrogation or are you trying to say that violence did not play a role where you were present in general, or are you trying to say that you cannot recall whether violence was used in this specific incident? Would you just clear that up for us.
MR VISSER: I am trying to tell you that in this particular matter violence was not used in the questioning of Sedibe. That violence was used by the Security Police in interrogations on activists is a well-known fact, but in this particular issue violence was not used.
ADV BOSMAN: Let me take it further, then no violence was used in as far as you can recall, or are you trying to tell us unequivocally that violence was not used?
MR VISSER: As far as I know violence was not used.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I have no questions.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LEOPENG: Just one more question, Chairman.
...(indistinct - no microphone) whether Mr Sedibe when Mr Visser visited him, he had the indication of cooperation?
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone) question before.
MR LEOPENG: ...(indistinct - no microphone) arose during the questioning by my learned colleague.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone) that's an aspect that I would have expected to have arose during consultation, but I'm going to allow you that limited question. You can ask that question.
MR LEOPENG: Thank you, Chairman.
Mr Visser, you said in your evidence that when you visited Mr Sedibe he was pleasant, interesting and relaxed, is that correct?
MR VISSER: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.
MR LEOPENG: Will I be correct to say that you gathered the impression that he was then cooperating with the police?
MR VISSER: I would have accepted or thought that the potential or possibility existed that he would cooperate with the police in the future.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LEOPENG
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, at this stage I don't know how important the aspect of assault is, but it would appear to me that this is the question on everyone's lips and that perhaps towards the end of these proceedings or this hearing it may become significant and this is why I would like to put one or two questions regarding this aspect to you. Do you have any knowledge that policemen, particularly in the Security Police at that time, made use of violence in order to at least obtain information?
MR VISSER: I do know about it, I've already stated when your colleague asked me, that during the past violence was applied in order to obtain information.
CHAIRPERSON: What was so special or so exceptional about the person who was abducted that he had to be brought here to the RSA?
MR VISSER: He was in a position of command within Swaziland, he was relatively highly placed in the ranks of the ANC, he was in command of the Transvaal machinery which was responsible for channelling and infiltrating people into the RSA in order to set landmines and bombs and by nature of these circumstances he would have possessed much knowledge about the ANC activities and that is why he was important to me.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it a consideration at that point to abduct other highly placed ANC members?
MR VISSER: I did not consider it, but it is possible that this may have been considered.
CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you consider it?
MR VISSER: The opportunity had not yet presented itself.
CHAIRPERSON: That is why I have asked you what was so exceptional about this person.
MR VISSER: His knowledge regarding activities, primarily activities within the Eastern Transvaal, the landmine and bomb explosions, along with the fact that he would be the one to give the final order with regard to infiltrations.
CHAIRPERSON: Why wasn't there any attempt to abduct Mr Hani because he would have been one of the best candidates, he knew about everything?
MR VISSER: I do believe that there was an attempt to abduct Mr Hani, if my memory does not fail me.
CHAIRPERSON: So abduction was part of the modus operandi?
MR VISSER: Yes, in terms of combatting terrorism.
CHAIRPERSON: Now subsequent to everything - if we could just abandon the political road from '94 onwards, how do you feel about this incident?
MR VISSER: I don't really understand the question - how do I feel about the events?
CHAIRPERSON: No, how do you feel.
MR VISSER: I feel completely satisfied. I know that I jeopardised my own life many a time in order to achieve certain goals, but I'm satisfied and I feel pleased about the changes that have taken place since 1994.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You are excused. We will now take the tea adjournment. Thank you, we are adjourned.
WITNESS EXCUSED
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The next applicant is Mr E A de Kock.
