Item Belt 134b - PDF - Bruno Mtolo XXD

Description

During this second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination Mr Berrange and Mr Bizos both question the witness. Mr Berrange continues with his line of inquiry and focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding his trip to meet with the High Command at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Bizos characteristically focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s experience in police custody and the circumstances in which he made his various statements.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was his inherent denial that his actions had in any way harmed the ANC and its non-communist membership. Bruno Mtolo goes so far as to suggest that by given evidence against the accused in this case he was actually doing a service for the ANC and the struggle against oppression in South Africa.

Witnesses Called

14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange continued.
The second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination began with Mr Berrange proving the court of a summary of the points discussed on the previous day and with Bruno Mtolo giving the court an apology for his tired mental state and lack of memory. Mr Berrange first returned his focus to the question of Harold Strachan’s meeting with, and instructions to, the Durban Regional Command. Mr Berrange refers to the court records of the previous day’s examination to reiterate the allegations Bruno Mtolo had made, regarding things said by Harold Strachan during his first meeting with the Regional Command, which he had failed to mention at all during his examination-in-chief.

Thereafter, Mr Berrange follows the same tactic in referring Bruno Mtolo to the events concerning Andrew Mlangeni and Brian Simani’s meeting with the Durban Regional Command during April/May, 1963. Once again in Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination he completely negated, or forgot, to mention a substantial amount of detail regarding this meeting as discussed in his examination-in-chief. In particular Bruno Mtolo made no mention of the complaints which he had told the court Andrew Mlangeni had been given by the Regional Command to take back to the High Command concerning, most importantly, the payment and safety of recruits. The point Mr Berrange was trying, with limited success, to get Bruno Mtolo to concede was that “as a human being, you can forget the most important things sometimes”. As a formidable state witness Bruno Mtolo was unwilling to concede even this general point to the defence.

Attention is then placed on Bruno Mtolo’s visit to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Berrange questions Bruno Mtolo briefly regarding his interactions with Walter Sisulu and Arthur Goldreich before spending more time on Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada. Referring to a statement made by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange puts it to Bruno Mtolo that at the time when he was talking to both the Port Elizabeth Man and Arthur Goldreich in the Thatched Cottage, Ahmed Kathrada was not involved and did not hear anything which was discussed. Reluctantly, Bruno Mtolo admits that this could have been the case. As Dr Yutar and the prosecution team were unable to locate the leaflet Bruno Mtolo alleged was drafted by Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, and stencilled for duplication by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange returns his focus to Walter Sisulu.

Bruno Mtolo acknowledged that the reason why Walter Sisulu had asked him where Solomon Mbanjwa was, upon his arrival at the Thatched Cottage, was because Solomon Mbanjwa was supposed to have come as a representative of the ANC. This was important because Bruno Mtolo was there as a representative of the MK which was a different organisation to the ANC.

Having made this point, Mr Berrange then went on to question Bruno Mtolo about acts of sabotage which were carried out in contravention of the High Command instructions not to risk harm to human beings. By framing the discussion in this way, Mr Berrange got Bruno Mtolo to admit that the endangering of goods train drivers’ lives and the bombing of the Nataller newspaper offices were examples of acts of sabotage carried out contrary to instructions.

Mr Berrange then reminds Bruno Mtolo that he told the court during his examination-in-chief that after the Rivonia arrests he had talked with Billy Nair and found that the news of the arrests had been hard on him. Mr Berrange told Bruno Mtolo that he found this “rather interesting” considering that at the time the Rivonia arrests took place Billy Nair had already been arrested for some. Bruno Mtolo tried to backtrack and reframe his answer in a number of ways but he had been caught in a clear lie by Mr Berrange. Unfortunately for the defence, the lies and contradictions exposed in Bruno Mtolo’s evidence during his cross-examination did not prevent his testimony from tying all of the accused (except for James Kantor and Rusty Bernstein) to acts of sabotage and the planning of, and recruiting of troops for, an armed overthrow of the apartheid government.

Eventually Dr Yutar submitted to the court the leaflet alleged to have been created by Govan Mbeki and Ahmed Kathrada (Exhibit R.10). Mr Berrange took time to read the document over before deciding not to spend time dealing with it further. Instead, Mr Berrange asks Bruno Mtolo about his evidence regarding the Chief at Bergville’s involvement in acts of sabotage and storing weapons for guerrilla warfare. Once again, Bruno Mtolo claimed that, even though this Chief was not a communist, he felt that betraying him in his evidence was a service in benefit of the ANC.

Mr Berrange informs the court that this temporarily concluded his cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. However, before stepping down, Mr Berrange makes two statements to the court. The first statement was that Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein, would deny that he had ever taken a message from the High Command to the Durban Regional Command. The second statement concerned the difficulties the defence attorney, Mr Joffe, had faced over the vacation period in interviewing certain people in regard to matters that had been testified to by Bruno Mtolo. As many of these people were themselves standing trial at the time Mr Joffe was unable, on the orders of their attorney, to get any information regarding the facts testified to by Bruno Mtolo until such time as these people had been tired and either convicted or acquitted. Therefore, Mr Berrange said that the defence were likely to submit an application to the court to have Bruno Mtolo recalled at a later stage. Judge De Wet did not object to this but did say, “I take it you will have to take your chance of his being found if you want to recall him”.

Thereafter, Mr Bizos raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Bizos begins his cross-examination with a characteristic focus on the witness’s identification of certain accused during police interrogations as a 90 day detainee. Particular focus is placed at first on Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Mr Bizos leads Bruno Mtolo to admit that in his mind he was eager to give the police as much detail in his statement as possible in order to save both the ANC and himself.

Mr Bizos asks only a few questions regarding Bruno Mtolo’s arrest and interaction with the police before court and further cross-examination of this witness is reserved.

Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1B/134b) (Vol.50/2A/135b) (Vol.50/2A/136b) (Vol.50/2A/137b) (Vol.50/2A/138b) (Vol.50/2A/139b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 16th January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).

Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.