Item Belt 60e - MP3 -  Ahmed Kathrada XXD

Description

The first record from this day is missing. There is only the accompanying handwritten notes (PDF) from which to work in understanding what took place during this 29:22 period of time. From this source it appears that Mr Berrange began by raising a complaint in regard to the keeping of certain of the Accused in isolation. Thereafter, it appears that Dr Yutar launched into what would be his main line of questioning during this morning’s proceedings – Ahmed Kathrada’s knowledge of, and relationship with, the other accused and the co-conspirators named in the interdict.

Moses Kotane and J.B. Marks were two of the co-conspirators named by Dr Yutar for whom Ahmed Kathrada displayed a tremendous amount of respect – over and above that he showed for his other co-accused and co-conspirators. During his limited identification of certain people named by Dr Yutar the issues of racial and religious classifications came to the fore of proceedings. As shall be seen, when Dr Yutar referred to certain co-conspirators as “Indian” or as a “co-religious” of Ahmed Kathrada’s, Ahmed Kathrada would immediately retort with a comment along the lines of “And a human being”.

Some of the other main issues dealt with by Dr Yutar on this day were as follows: the question of how traitors were to be dealt with; certain acts of sabotage (and that committed by Ben Turok in particular); the relationship between the Indian Congress and the ANC; as well as Ahmed Kathrada’s position in regard to political violence and the tactic of sabotage.

Ahmed Kathrada’s Evidence

As stated above, the primary line of questioning Dr Yutar adopted for much of this morning’s proceedings was in regard to Ahmed Kathrada’s knowledge of and relationship with each of the accused and named co-conspirators in the trial. Dr Yutar began by going through each of the accused in numerical order. In regard to Accused No.1, Ahmed Kathrada stated that he met Nelson Mandela sometime in the 1940s when he was still a student at which time he also met Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. Ahmed Kathrada first met Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, in 1962 and knew him to be a member of the Congress of Democrats at the time. He met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Walter Sisulu’s house in Orlando in 1960 or 1961 and said that Govan Mbeki was largely concerned with the politics of the Bantustans / homelands in the 1940s when he worked for the Guardian New Age newspapers. Ahmed Kathrada conceded that Govan Mbeki had come to Johannesburg in connection with his work for the Communist Party.

Continuing down the bench, Ahmed Kathrada stated that he first met Accused No.6, Lionel ‘Rusty’ Bernstein, in the 1940s through the Communist Party. Accused No.7, Raymond Mhlaba, was first met by Ahmed Kathrada in New Brighton in 1952 and Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, in Johannesburg in 1950. He knew Raymond Mhlaba as an ANC member and Elias Motsoaledi as a leading figure in the organisation. Last of the accused was Andrew Mlangeni, Accused No.10, whom Ahmed Kathrada also met for the first time in the 1950s and whom he identified as no more than an ANC member. Thereafter, Dr Yutar shifted attention to the identification and political affiliations of the co-conspirators listed in Annexure A to the indictment. Ahmed Kathrada knew the majority of the co-conspirators put to him by Dr Yutar with Vivian Ezra and Looksmart Solwandla Ngudle being two notable exceptions.

Ahmed Kathrada began by explaining that he had known Ben Turok, Harold Wolpe and Arthur Goldreich all, both socially and politically, since the 1940s. He was also able to give some details in regard to Michael Harmel, Percy Hodgson and Bill Andrews – the last of whom was the General Secretary of the Communist Party before it was banned. Dr Yutar paid particular attention to Ronald ‘Ronnie’ Kasrils whom Ahmed Kathrada stated he had met socially in Johannesburg when Ronnie Kasrils was working as an engineer. Dr Yutar asked if Ahmed Kathrada was aware that Ronnie Kasrils was a member of the Natal Regional Command of MK and Ahmed Kathrada replied that he had never heard this before these trial proceedings.

When Dr Yutar asked about Moses Kotane, who was already outside of the country, Ahmed Kathrada said that he was a member of the ANC, SACP, and was “one of the most respected leaders of the African people”. Dr Arthur Letele was identified by Ahmed Kathrada as the former Treasurer of the ANC before he was deported to Basutoland (now Lesotho) from where he was currently practicing as a medical doctor. Dr Yutar suggested that an entry in Nelson Mandela’s dairy as well as letters found at Travallyn showed that Dr Letele had continued to work as a kind of treasurer for the ANC from Basutoland, facilitating the transfer of large sums of money in and out the Republic. Dr Yutar asked Ahmed Kathrada to concede that evidence showed this was true but Ahmed Kathrada said that he could not possibly concede to such a thing of which he had no knowledge whatsoever.

J.B. Marks was the person, along with Moses Kotane, whom Ahmed Kathrada seemed to have displayed the most respect and admiration for. He said that he knew “Uncle J.B.” as President of the African Mineworkers Union, an official of the Council for Non-European Trade Unions, a member of the SACP, “and one of the most respected members of the African National Congress”. When Dr Yutar came to deal with George Naicker and Billy Nair he was met with a further challenge by Ahmed Kathrada. Dr Yutar put it to Ahmed Kathrada that George Naicker “is a co-religious of yours”. After Ahmed Kathrada asked Dr Yutar to repeat the bizarre term he had used and after understanding the prosecutor’s meaning he replied “he is a Hindu and I am a Muslim… they are two different religions”. As Ahmed Kathrada was speaking Dr Yutar replied “Yes, I mean Indian” and then moved on to deal with Billy Nair. Dr Yutar said “Also an Indian, let’s just get that out the way…” to which Ahmed Kathrada replied “And a human being!” which, in turn, caused Dr Yutar to quickly mutter “I have never denied that”. Ahmed Kathrada simply said “Oh, okay” in response to Dr Yutar. After a brief pause Dr Yutar said, “You’re trying to be smart with me and I’m prepared to take it”.

Ahmed Kathrada replied that he did not understand why Dr Yutar felt the need to use terms “co-religious and Indian and all that”. The prosecutor replied, “I have a perfectly good reason… and I’m not doing it disrespectfully when I ask whether he is Indian”. Moving on from this issue Ahmed Kathrada denied that he had ever known either George Naicker or Billy Nair to have worked for the Natal Regional Command prior to this trial. Although, as previously mentioned, Ahmed Kathrada did not know Looksmart Solwandla Ngudle he did say that “I’ve heard about him when he was killed. I mean when he was alleged to have committed suicide”. In regard to Joe Modise, Ahmed Kathrada once again made it clear that he had never known Joe Modise as a communist but only as an ANC leader in Johannesburg.

A significant amount of time was spent by Dr Yutar in dealing with Advocate Joseph Slovo. Ahmed Kathrada explained that it was when he joined the Communist Youth League that he first met Joe Slovo who was a listed communist. Dr Yutar asked exactly when Ahmed Kathrada had seen Joe Slovo at Rivonia. Ahmed Kathrada said that it was sometime during his stay in 1963 that Joe Slovo came to Rivonia and had a discussion in the Thatched Cottage – about which and with whom Ahmed Kathrada refused to tell the court. Dr Yutar suggested that Abel Mtembu, Mr Z, had said that Ahmed Kathrada was present when he allegedly discussed MK affairs with Joe Slovo in the presence of Walter Sisulu in the Thatched Cottage. After establishing that Mr Z’s evidence had not included Ahmed Kathrada, Dr Yutar used the opportunity to ask Ahmed Kathrada if he considered Abel Mtembu to be a traitor and if so what he believed would happen to such traitors. Ahmed Kathrada echoed the position of Walter Sisulu and said that:

I hope they will be tried and dealt with… by the machinery set up, when the people of this country run this country.

Dr Yutar asked if this machinery was “the Provisional Revolutionary Government” and Ahmed Kathrada said “You can call it that” but explained that, while he had heard this term used in many different contexts, only during this case had he heard of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Africa. Returning to the matter of traitors, Dr Yutar asked if there were traitors amongst the Indian people. Ahmed Kathrada replied “I suppose there are. There are traitors amongst all people: Indians, Jews, South Africans, Afrikaners, the lot”. When Dr Yutar asked how Indian traitors were going to be dealt with Ahmed Kathrada said, “My lord, when it comes to traitors, they are traitors. Of whatever colour they are, they are traitors. I hope they’ll all be dealt with similarly”.

Dr Yutar went on to make the suggestion that the ANC circulars handed in by D/Sgt Card which named two pro-Government men who were both killed shortly after the documents were distributed was evidence that drastic steps had already been taken to deal with traitors. In connection with this suggestion Dr Yutar referred to a document which had not yet been submitted to the court. It was a document entitled “Combat: The official organ of the Transvaal Indian Youth Congress” and at least one copy of it had been found by the police in the third bedroom at Rivonia. When Dr Yutar asked why Ahmed Kathrada was “hesitating about it” Ahmed Kathrada explained that although he maintained close association with the Congress after his banning he was unaware of many internal details of the organisation and its work at certain moments. Dr Yutar read an extract from the document and asked Ahmed Kathrada to comment on it – particularly the part which stated that “certain people in our community were stabbing the Indian people in the back”.

Ahmed Kathrada insisted on reading the whole circular before making a comment. After some time he eventually said that the document was referring to the anti-Republican strike of May, 1961. Dr Yutar focused explicitly on the issue of picketing during this strike and Ahmed Kathrada tried to suggest a number of times that although there might have been some picketing done “to the best of my knowledge this is not done at the instance of the organisers of the strike”. Despite this statement Dr Yutar persisted in his slow reading of the document and asked yet again “how were you going to deal with these… stool pigeons and good boys?” To this Ahmed Kathrada responded:

I did not write that, but if I were to deal with them, a lot of their types have already been dealt with. They’ve been completely ostracised from the community.

Dr Yutar reverted to his suggestion that the way in which these traitors have been dealt with is by means of murder shortly after which Judge De Wet called for the tea-time adjournment. Following the adjournment Dr Yutar resumed his cross-examination by dealing with certain people “who are here named as enemies of the Indian cause”. Ahmed Kathrada agreed that the men named in the Contact document “where no friends of the Indian community” and added:

I was just going to say my lord, in connection with A. S. Kajee, that in fact, this morning's newspaper, 500 Indians in Natal refused to hear him and asked him to leave. That's how the Indian community look upon him and I think that's how they are being dealt with. Very satisfactorily.

When Dr Yutar asked if it was the policy of the Indian Congress to “expose” traitors, as was suggested in the document, Ahmed Kathrada said that he could not think of one instance in which the Indian Congress (and not the Transvaal Indian Youth Congress) had ever gone “on a campaign against any individual”. Ahmed Kathrada boldly stated that he did not disapprove of the dynamite which was placed outside A.S. Kajee’s office on 9th December, 1962 (Item 122). Dr Yutar said, “That’s enough for my purpose” and shifted his focus back to certain named co-conspirators – starting with Harold Strachan. Ahmed Kathrada claimed to have never met Harold Strachan but had known about him for a number of years and was aware that he had been convicted. Ahmed Kathrada insisted that he had only heard of Harold Strachan’s alleged involvement in the training of people in the use and manufacture of explosives in this case for the first time.

The next co-conspirator mentioned by Dr Yutar was Oliver Tambo. Ahmed Kathrada said that Oliver Tambo had been one of his co-accused during the treason trial and had been, at different stages, the Secretary-General and the Deputy President-General of the ANC. At the present moment Ahmed Kathrada conceded that Oliver Tambo was working with Tennison Makawane, Robert Resha, Duma Nokwe, and others on the external mission of the ANC. When Dr Yutar asked if Ahmed Kathrada condoned the actions of Ben Turok, when he placed a bomb in the desk drawer of the Commissioner of the Rissik Street Post Office building, Ahmed Kathrada asked if he could have an opportunity to clarify his general position in regard to acts of sabotage. Dr Yutar did not give him the opportunity and asked only if he approved of this act. Ahmed Kathrada responded:

I’ll answer it this way. I don’t condemn acts of sabotage, on principle, but I have said that my reservations about acts of sabotage, is individual acts of sabotage do not move our struggle.

When Dr Yutar referred to what Ahmed Kathrada had said in his examination-in-chief Ahmed Kathrada confirmed that he still maintained that acts of sabotage “were justified”. Dr Yutar then asked:

Under what basis can you justify the placing of a bomb in the desk of a man who… sits to hear the debate of divorce cases? On what basis do you justify that?

Ahmed Kathrada simply asked if the building had been a government building and when Dr Yutar said that it was he stated “and it’s in line with Umkhonto’s policy to damage Government buildings”. “Why put it in the drawer of his desk”, asked Dr Yutar, and Ahmed Kathrada replied “I did not put it there in the drawer of his desk”. Ahmed Kathrada eventually made his position that he did not disapprove of the act unless “it brought any danger to the individual concerned” in which case he would have disapproved. He added that he was “not prepared to speculate on what the motives of Mr Turok were”. Dr Yutar attempted to force Ahmed Kathrada to concede that the bomb placed by Ben Turok would have certainly caused injury and even death if not for “the act of God” which stopped it from going off. In making this point Dr Yutar said that serious harm could have been caused to “An innocent man posting a letter over there, an innocent child, maybe even a young Indian girl! Or a little Indian child”. Ahmed Kathrada replied “I don’t know why the Indian comes into it”. Dr Yutar responded, “I said maybe”, causing Ahmed Kathrada to add “Maybe, it may be a Jewish child too”.

Dr Yutar then asked about Cecil George William. Ahmed Kathrada said that he “was very privileged” to have associated with Cecil Williams when he was a member of the Congress of Democrats and a well-known political theorist. Ahmed Kathrada said he could not comment on the financial history or relationship between Cecil Williams and the firm for which Harold Wolpe worked but did concede that he was a communist. Directly after this brief discussion of Cecil Williams Dr Yutar said quite suddenly “Now let’s deal where we left off yesterday afternoon. Do you remember you made a bitter attack on the British Government yesterday?” Ahmed Kathrada recalled his comment which he characterised, not as a bitter attack, but as a fair assessment of the historical and existential deviation of British colonialism and its resultant oppression for the majority of people in India. Dr Yutar then put it to Ahmed Kathrada:

Is it not a fact that countless millions of your people are suffering and living in conditions far worse than the Indian population in this country… By comparison Indians in this country are living in a state of luxury by comparison.

Ahmed Kathrada’s reply to this suggestion was, “I don’t know about that. I don’t know about that at all”, after which, Dr Yutar turned his attention to the objections Ahmed Kathrada had raised against the 90-day detention law. In this regard Dr Yutar relied on Exhibit T.42 which was a directive to All Regions and Branches issued on 10th July, 1963. Dr Yutar read from this document and, in response to his first question, Ahmed Kathrada said that he would not be surprised if people had “pestered” the police when one of their friends or relatives had been taken in under the 90-day law and kept in isolation. Dr Yutar asked Ahmed Kathrada if he knew that in India there was a three-year detention law without trial and if he had ever expressed any objection to this law. Ahmed Kathrada replied, “I have not. I live in South Africa, I suffer from the laws in South Africa, and my objection is what goes on to me and my people”.

With that Dr Yutar dropped the subject of the 90-day detention law and suggested that when Ahmed Kathrada had attended conferences overseas, and visited socialist countries, he had “directed attention against your country of birth… but not your mother country”. Ahmed Kathrada replied, “My mother country is South Africa”. Dr Yutar then asked Ahmed Kathrada if he knew that Ghana had a five-year detention law and if he had ever “spurned the system from Ghana?” Ahmed Kathrada replied, “I’ll get assistance from the devil. Provided it is for my people in this country, and the freedom of my people”. In response to this admission Dr Yutar said “But you choose to attack the country of your birth!” and Ahmed Kathrada responded “I choose to attack it and I will go on attacking it ’till things are put right”.

The next topic under discussion as that of the pseudonyms used in correspondence by members of the NLM. Ahmed Kathrada predominantly refused to give any information on principle, except for that already admitted to by Walter Sisulu, and insisted that he was not the person referred to as “K” in Nelson Mandela’s dairy entries. When Dr Yutar asked who this “K” could otherwise be Ahmed Kathrada suggested “Mr Khrushchev”. It was at this stage that Ahmed Kathrada baited the prosecutor into asking several questions about who “Mr Khrushchev” was and if he lived in Durban, Johannesburg, or Cape Town, before Dr Yutar eventually worked out that Ahmed Kathrada was talking about USSR leader Nikita Khrushchev. “So you were just trying to be funny at my expense?” said Dr Yutar, to which Ahmed Kathrada replied, “I wasn’t. You asked me if I know of any Mr. “K” and I told you”.

Eventually Ahmed Kathrada told Dr Yutar that the only other person who may be known as “K” in South Africa was Caswell Moonsammy who was an organiser of the Natal Indian Congress. Dr Yutar read directly from Nelson Mandela’s dairy in an attempt to prove that Ahmed Kathrada was the “K” described therein whom Nelson Mandela had fought with for “boozing” and missing a meeting with himself and Walter Sisulu the night before. At one point in Dr Yutar’s reading of Mandela’s dairy he came across an entry which stated “I sleep at Fischer’s house”. Ahmed Kathrada asked if he could see the original and said that it read “I sleep at Fish K’s house” but that the “K” did not refer to himself.

Dr Yutar then told Ahmed Kathrada that he was now suggesting that “K” referred to A.M. Kajee with whom Ahmed Kathrada shared a flat in Johannesburg. Ahmed Kathrada said that many people stayed in the flat and made no further comment, after which, Dr Yutar listed the “Iron Curtain” Socialist countries Ahmed Kathrada visited whilst overseas. He then went on to deal with the various organisations constituting the Congress Alliance and the NLM, respectively. When Dr Yutar asked Ahmed Kathrada when the NLM was formed Ahmed Kathrada said “A movement is not formed... I say the moment the oppression started in this country the movement for Liberation started”. In regard to the Congress Alliance, however, Ahmed Kathrada said that this unified alliance was established when “Dr Xuma, Dr Naicker and Dr Dadoo signed a pact of unity in 1947” which was known as the “Doctor Pact”.

Ahmed Kathrada explained that prior to its banning in 1950 the Communist Party had co-operated with the South African Indian Congress and the African National Congress in various campaigns. He added that despite the fact that the Communist Party continued to exist underground after it was banned and remained part of the NLM, it was no longer formally part of the Congress Alliance and did not attend its meetings. Furthermore, Ahmed Kathrada claimed that after its banning in 1950 the Communist Party had no contact with the Indian Congress at all. Dr Yutar found it hard to believe that there was no contact between two such organisations in the NLM and Ahmed Kathrada explained:

My lord, when we talk of the National Liberation Movement, or rather when I talk of the National Liberation Movement, I also include organisations such as the Pan Africanist Congress, such as the non-European Unity Movement the All-African Convention. These are all forces of the National Liberation. We might differ fundamentally with some of them, but they still aspire for freedom in this country, and therefore, are part of the National Liberation Movement.

Dr Yutar pointed out that Ahmed Kathrada, like Walter Sisulu, had left the MK out of his description of the NLM. Ahmed Kathrada said that this was for no reason other than the fact that he forgot about it and assured Dr Yutar that he had not left it out deliberately. Dr Yutar asked why it was that Nelson Mandela had told Ahmed Kathrada about the formation of MK at Rivonia in December 1961 if there was no need to consult him about it. Ahmed Kathrada said that it might have been because Nelson Mandela saw him “as a leading figure in the movement who should be told”. Dr Yutar pushed Ahmed Kathrada to concede that the acts of sabotage committed before December, 1961, were by MK but Ahmed Kathrada said, “I am in no position to confirm or refute… But I would believe what Mr. Mandela said”. Dr Yutar challenged if this belief in Nelson Mandela’s word should be upheld even though he did not speak under oath to which Ahmed Kathrada stated “Whenever Mr Mandela speaks, I would believe him”.

Ahmed Kathrada confirmed that when Nelson Mandela informed him about the formation of MK he said that it was a country-wide organisation set up “by leading members of the African National Congress” and other people “in whom he was sure I would have the fullest confidence” but he did not name anybody individually. Dr Yutar then asked whom Ahmed Kathrada had subsequently heard was in the leadership of MK. Ahmed Kathrada said that he was told that Nelson Mandela was a leader and had heard that Govan Mbeki and Joe Slovo were also leaders. It was only during this case that Ahmed Kathrada heard that Walter Sisulu had “something to do” with the MK leadership. According to Ahmed Kathrada the units of MK were responsible for committing acts of sabotage and the incident in which Peter Molefe was killed in Dube was the only occasion in which loss of life had occurred. “What about those in Natal who threw a bomb onto a passenger train, in mistake for a goods train?” asked Dr Yutar, in yet another attempt to discredit the so-called “responsible leadership” of the NLM and MK in particular. Ahmed Kathrada stated:

I have said that those who have been… who are in MK have been forced to resort to these methods. I have the fullest admiration for their courage, and when you talk of responsibility, I also know that members of the Ossewa Brandwag committed acts of sabotage, when they had the vote, and when they had every other means of expressing themselves in this country, and they resorted to sabotage, and some of them are in the Government today.

He went on to reiterate that the reservations and objections he had expressed in regard to the use of sabotage in the struggle against apartheid were based on tactical grounds and not principles. In dealing further with the matter of these reservations Dr Yutar asked why Ahmed Kathrada considered himself to be an “activist”. Ahmed Kathrada explained that he adopted the label because he understood himself as a person who is active in the political movement – hence being an activist. In an attempt to unsettle Ahmed Kathrada Dr Yutar suggested “You let all the other rank and file do your dirty work but you stay away. They can blow up pylons and railway lines…” Ahmed Kathrada interrupted the prosecutor and stated, “I have not incited anybody, and I can ensure you that had I agreed with that decision, I would have gone and blown up whatever was decided”. Ahmed Kathrada went on to reiterate that another reason why he had not yet been involved in one act of sabotage was because he was not a member of MK. He repeated yet again that his chief reservation was that:

Acts of sabotage on their own, isolated from the mass political struggles of the people are not necessarily effective. They create to my way of thinking, a bit of enthusiasm and that enthusiasm dies down. In other words, if they are not related, for instance if they are related to a mass campaign or a mass struggle… For instance, if there was an anti-pass campaign on, and people were going to gaol, for burning of their passes, and somebody goes and blows up the pass office, I would have no objection to that whatsoever.

…I felt that the danger was that the masses of the people might start believing that sabotage is a substitute for the mass struggle, and that was my fear, and that goes for my reservations which I expressed to Mr Mandela.

In light of the above response by Ahmed Kathrada, Dr Yutar asked if he would consider the combination of sabotage and guerrilla warfare as an effective combination. Ahmed Kathrada said that if he thought guerrilla warfare would achieve the purposes of the NLM “in the minimum of time, I would say let’s have guerrilla warfare tomorrow. But I believe that guerrilla warfare was not feasible, and is still not feasible”. When Dr Yutar asked Ahmed Kathrada what the distinction between guerrilla warfare and armed revolution was the witness answered that in his mind there was no real distinction between the two concepts.

Dr Yutar took this as a sign that Ahmed Kathrada was yet again pretending that he did not understand the concept of guerrilla warfare and proceeded to list the documents, based on Che Guevara and Fidel Castro’s writings on the topic, which Ahmed Kathrada had helped draft in order to undermine the credibility of his testimony. Thereafter Dr Yutar referred Ahmed Kathrada to several acts of sabotage and asked, in regard to each one, whether he felt that they were justified. In each instance Ahmed Kathrada repeated “If the people doing it thought that this was going to take them forward in their march to freedom, I don’t disapprove of that”.

It was during the discussion of the sabotage attack on the Old Synagogue in Pretoria, for which Ahmed Kathrada refused to take responsibility, when Judge De Wet called for court to be adjourned until the following morning.

Further cross-examination reserved.

Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.53/8A/60e) (Vol.53/8B/61e) (Vol.53/8B/62e) (Vol.53/8B/63e) (Vol.53/8B/64e).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 29th April, 1964, (Ms.385/36/1).
File containing details about Accused Nos. 1-7: TS, Ahmed Kathrada (MS.385/31/3/6).
A M Kathrada [Acc.No.5] Examination-in-chief only – incomplete. Marked AA4. (MS.385/8).
WITS Historical Papers:
Ahmed Kathrada’s Evidence on resuming (copy) (AD1844.A24.2).

Key Words
Ahmed Kathrada, Co-conspirators, J.B Marks, Moses Kotane, Racial Classifications, Religious Classification, Sabotage, MK, ANC, Indian Congress, 1947 Doctor Pact, Traitors.