Item Belt 48c - MP3 - Eva Hlongwane

Description

Proceedings began on this day with Dr Yutar stressing to the court, once again, that the safety of certain witnesses from Port Elizabeth was under serious threat and that he wished for them to give evidence in camera. In response to this request Judge De Wet informs Dr Yutar that on that morning an article had been published in the popular Afrikaans newspaper, the Transvaaler, which gave the name of state witness Zizi Njikalane despite his explicit orders not to do so. Dr Yutar claimed that he was not aware that this had happened and Judge De Wet told him, rather sternly, that if the press did not obey the orders of this court they would be excluded henceforth from proceedings. Judge De Wet said that he would like to find out why that instruction was not carried out by the Transvaaler reporter, and why the name of the witness has been published, to which Dr Yutar responded that he would follow up on the issue and let the Judge know later in the day.

Mr Fisher then added that there was another matter in which, “there had again been a report in an afternoon paper of a statement of fact about the case which in my submission is clearly contempt. The newspapers seem to think that they can publish matters about co-conspirators as if they were statements of fact that have been found by this court and that is certainly not so my lord. It clearly effects the case whether it is an accused or a co-conspirator”. To Mr Fischer’s statement Judge De Wet gave the following reply:

“It’s very often ignorance on the part of the reporter, Mr Fischer, but it is most unsatisfactory, of course, that the reports are not done correctly. You see, judges have had continuous difficulty with the press report that which is not factual as it is inclined to make propaganda one way or the other, and that of course the court will not count in its decisions.”

Judge De Wet then ordered for the court to be cleared for Zizi Njikalane to be recalled for further examination-in-chief by Mr Krog. Following from Zizi Njikalane, Lieut. Swanepoel was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Berrange. Lieut. Swanepoel holds an infamous place in South African history as one of the most notorious and prolific interrogators for the Security Branch in Johannesburg. In his cross-examination Mr Berrange attempted to get Lieut. Swanepoel to concede to a number of well-known tactics of interrogation taught to officers during a special 90day detention training course. Lieut. Swanepoel, perhaps as was expected, was an extremely unhelpful witness for the defence and on serval occasions made Mr Berrange more frustrated than he had been with any previous witness.

Witnesses Called

48th State Witness: Zizi Njikalane – ANC Member, Port Elizabeth. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.

Mr Krog began by recalling the last meeting mentioned by Zizi Njikalane which allegedly took place in New Brighton during May, 1961, with George Tsambula acting as Chairman. According to Zizi Njikalane at this meeting George Tsambula complained that although there were many people present at the meeting, only a few were official ANC members because the majority had not paid their monthly membership fee and received their ticket. According to Zizi Njikalane, under the new system, ANC membership cards were no longer given out and members received a monthly ticket after making payments instead. Although Raymond Mhlaba was said to have spoken at this meeting Mr Krog did not push Zizi Njikalane to give details about this meeting.

By way of concluding his examination Mr Krog asked Zizi Njikalane if he knew what position Joseph Jack held within the ANC to which the witness responded, none that he was aware of. Finally Zizi Njikalane confirmed that he knew Vuyisile Mini but not of his activities with the ANC.

Mr Fischer requested that the witness stand down for cross-examination at a later stage.

45th State Witness: Lieutenant T.J. Swanepoel – Special Branch Interrogator. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Lieut. Swanepoel was recalled by Dr Yutar in order to submit a number of the exhibits which had been found in the raid of Mountain View discussed during his evidence on the previous day. The first to be submitted was Exhibit M 27a which was the brunt remains of a booklet entitled, “Programme of the South African Communist Party”. Lieut. Swanepoel was certain that the remains were of this booklet in particular because he was able to examine it in comparison to a similar copy of “Programme of the South African Communist Party” found in the lounge of Rivonia. Thereafter Dr Yutar submitted Exhibits M 27b and M 27c which were burnt portions of documents also found in the compost heap at Mountain View.

With each exhibit Lieut. Swanepoel is asked to read out to the court those portion of the documents which were legible. In doing so Lieut. Swanepoel sporadically read out words such as “Bolshevist”, “Comrades”, “Congress”, “Revolutionary”, “Central Com”, “Liberate”, “Black Liberation”, and others, which appeared as legible, with a few incomplete sentences, on the documents recovered from the compost heap. Lieut. Swanepoel said that he believed the words “the Duma” appearing on one of the documents was a reference to the Secretary General of the ANC, Nokwe Duma.

The cardboard box containing these remains of burnt documents was submitted as Exhibit M 27 and Lieut. Swanepoel claimed that these were the documents he was referring to as communistic literature during the first day of his examination-in-chief.

Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.

Mr Berrange begins by focusing on the bunt documents Lieut. Swanepoel described as communistic literature. Mr Berrange suggested that the printed book could have in fact been a history text book. Lieut. Swanepoel refused to concede to this suggestion. Mr Berrange persisted with this line and told Lieut. Swanepoel it was very important because in his examination-in-chief he had claimed that the word ANC had appeared on these documents. On this day when the documents had been produced in court, however, Lieut. Swanepoel could not find ANC written anywhere. In addition to this, Mr Berrange continued, Lieut. Swanepoel had made another direct between these documents and the ANC by claiming that the legible phrase “of the Duma” was a reference to ANC Secretary General, Duma Nokwe. Mr Berrange insisted that it was obvious that the phase the Duma had nothing to do with Duma Nokwe but Lieut. Swanepoel resolutely maintained that it was a possibility. Having become increasingly frustrated with the unhelpful attitude of the witness Mr Berrange eventually asks, “Well do people refer to you as ‘the Swanepoel’?” to which Lieut. Swanepoel replied they did not.

Mr Berrange worked extremely hard to get even the most hesitant acceptance from Lieut. Swanepoel that the words he had read out to the court could have come from either a history text book or a critique of communist theory and philosophy. Thereafter he turns his attention to the arrests of the Kreels and, more significantly, the detention of Eva Hlongwane. Mr Berrange puts it to Lieut. Swanepoel, “you certainly wouldn’t keep a person a minute longer if you were satisfied that he or she had answered you truthfully, or would you?” Lieut. Swanepoel, not for the first time, tries to dodge the question and queries what its purpose was. Mr Berrange, with obvious traces of anger in his raised voice snapped in response, “Just answer my question please, Lieut. Swanepoel! That’s all, don’t try and ask me what I am getting at. If my question is not clear, ask me and I’ll try and make it clear to you, but don’t ask me what I am getting at, please!” He repeated his simple question and Lieut. Swanepoel responded that he personally would never hold a witness in detention for longer than necessary.

Having established this, Mr Berrange asked Lieut. Swanepoel why it was then the case that Eva Hlongwane – despite having made a statement within the first five days of her 90 day detention including every detail of evidence she had given in court – had been detained and repeatedly interrogated for more than 90 days. After a long silence Mr Berrange asks if the reason was perhaps to frighten and intimidate her or others. Lieut. Swanepoel refused to concede this and insisted that the 90 day detention was designed to give people an opportunity to be questioned and make a statement before being formally arrested.

Mr Berrange asked why Eva Hlongwane had eventually been released and Lieut. Swanepoel flatly refused to answer the question. Mr Berrange asked if he couldn’t or wouldn’t answer the question. Lieut. Swanepoel thought for a moment and then replied that he was not the right man to answer that question which should be put to the Commissioner of the SAP. Mr Berrange then asks Lieut. Swanepoel, as the investigating officer in-charge of the case, if he had not been the one who recommended that Eva Hlongwane be released which officer had. Once again Lieut. Swanepoel avoided giving a clear answer to any of the questions put to him and Mr Berrange was interrupted by Judge De Wet who asked him where this arduous line of questioning was going?

During a brief discussion between Mr Berrange and Judge De Wet it was established that the reason for Mr Berrange’s persistence was to bring into question the credibility of Eva Hlongwane’s evidence as a witness – knowing the nefarious physical and psychological conditions experienced under 90 day detention and, ‘the whole technique used for questioning detainees’. Mr Berrange becomes so frustrated with Lieut. Swanepoel in the course of his line of questioning concerning Eva Hlongwane that he states on several occasions “Your responses have nothing to do with my question!”

Mr Berrange then puts it to Lieut. Swanepoel that Bob Hepple had told him under interrogation that he used to be a communist but he no longer was one at the time of his detention. Lieut. Swanepoel refused this suggestion and maintained that Bob Hepple had told him, “I am a communist”.

Mr Berrange then turns attention to the four sheets of black material found in the Mountain View cottage which Lieut. Swanepoel had suggested in his evidence was used to disguise Harold Wolpe and Arthur Goldreich as priests to flee the country. Mr Berrange put it to Lieut. Swanepoel that the material could also have been used for other purposes such as making gowns for advocates. Lieut. Swanepoel agreed that this was so. Interestingly, at the mention of the idea that the material found at Mountain View could have been used to make advocate gowns, there is a stifled yet audible laugh from someone seated near the dictabelt recorder.

After questioning Lieut. Swanepoel about certain particulars regarding the raid at Mountain View and the different sets of keys handed in as exhibits to the court, Mr Berrange turns attention back to Lieut. Swanepoel’s role as primary interrogator of detainees associated with the Rivonia Trial. In particular, Mr Berrange makes reference to the interrogation of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, by Lieut. Swanepoel and D/Sgt Diedricks during his 90day detention. Mr Berrange reads from a statement made by Ahmed Kathrada describing the way in which the witness and his colleagues used well known tactics of inducement to try and get him to give evidence of which he had no knowledge.

Such tactics included, amongst others: telling the detainee that his accomplices had all made statements; asking him to make statements “off the record”; and, perhaps most significantly, telling him that if he cooperated and gave information he would have the change to leave the country and go to Europe. Lieut. Swanepoel refused to concede that any of the interactions described in Ahmed Kathrada’s interrogation may have been inducement.

Re-examination by Dr Yutar.

Dr Yutar focused on two points in his re-examination of Lieut. Swanepoel. The first was the black material found at Mountain View which, he clarifies for the court, in the opinion of Lieut. Swanepoel was used for the creation of Harold Wolpe and Arthur Goldreich’s priest gowns. The second point was that that the evidence that had been given by Lieut. Swanepoel was that Bob Hepple had admitted that he was a communist at the time of his detention.

Further cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Mr Berrange simply asked Lieut. Swanepoel a number of questions about the layout of the Mountain View Cottage before allowing the witness to stand down.

47th State Witness: Eva Hlongwane – House worker, Mountain View. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
Mr Fischer questions Eva Hlongwane about her time spent in detention and being interrogated. Eva Hlongwane explained that she was asked, usually once a week, to identify photographs and say if she had seen these people at Mountain View. Mr Fischer told Eva Hlongwane a short while into her cross-examination, “Eva, you needn’t be afraid, I just what… want to know what happened”. Eva Hlongwane replied that she understood but maintained that the she felt that the interrogating officers had believed her when she first made a statement and that her interrogations following that consisted of her being shown different photographs and trying to identify them.

Mr Fischer then questioned Eva Hlongwane about the time when Mr Don Williams told her he was going away and introduced her to the man she thought was Portuguese who would be taking his place as resident in the cottage. He confirmed with Eva that she had told Lieut. Swanepoel that she had believed that the Kreil’s had been crying (on the night documents were burned on the compost heap) because of an issue in relation to Mrs Kreil’s ill mother.

Re-examination by Mr Krog:
Mr Krog asks Eva Hlongwane if she had enquired as to why Mr and Mrs Kreil were crying on the night in question. Eva Hlongwane said that, assuming it had to do with Mrs Kreil’s ill mother, she had asked by received no explanation from her employers.

Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/8A/43c) (Vol.50/8B/44c) (Vol.50/8B/45c) (Vol.50/8B/46c) (Vol.50/8B/47c) (Vol.50/8B/48c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 28th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Zizi George Njikelani (Ms.385/4).
Evidence of Theunis Jacobus Swanepoel (Ms.385/4).
Evidence of Eva Hlongwane (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
G1 – G105: Evidence includes that by police detectives, and other State witnesses (AD1844.A8.1).
Evidence: E. Sebone, E. Hlongwane (AD1844.A11.7).
Evidence: Ziz (AD1844.A13.2)
Analysis of evidence: Lieut. Swanepoel (AD1844.A18.7).
Analysis of evidence: Eva Hlongwane (AD1844.A18.9).
Analysis of evidence: Zizi Njikelane (AD1844.A18.10).
Evaluation of evidence: Zisi Njikelane (AD1844.Ba13).

Key Words
East London, Port Elizabeth, ANC, Sabotage, Police Witnesses, Mountain View, Nelson Mandela, Govan Mbeki, Raymond Mhlaba.

Description
Before the first witness, Bennet Mashiyane, was recalled for cross-examination Mr Fischer addressed the court on the issue of the press. It is worth quoting what Mr Fischer said directly:

I’ve shown this to my learned friend, I don’t want to take up the time of the Court, but the defence feels very strongly that it is time, that the newspapers learnt that they cannot make statements of fact, about persons who are either charged or co-conspirators, and here is not one of the cases where Your Lordship mentioned yesterday, where the reporter may make a mistake in Court. Here is a report about someone escaping from custody, and the news item goes on to discuss others who have left the country. They mention Goldreich and Wolpe and then go on and this is, I’m quoting from the Vaderland, “who has already been convicted once in connection with this case of contempt”. This is the Vaderland of the 22nd January….

After quoting an extract from the newspaper article mentioning Jack Hodgson’s involvement with MK and acts of sabotage Mr Fischer concludes by saying “That I submit is clearly contempt and the newspapers simply must learn a lesson and stop doing this sort of thing”. In response to this complaint Judge De Wet responded:

Yes, well, I’ll go into the matter Mr Fischer. Its, its… ah, we have a… I don’t know whether it’s the influence of the American style of reporting, or what it is, but the newspapers don’t seem to realise that, ah, evidence until a case is concluded consists of allegations not facts. And newspapers should understand that clearly and state the distinction between an allegation and a fact.

Thereafter, Bennet Mashiyane from East London was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Fischer. In addition to Bennet Mashiyane, on this day, the defence cross-examined D/Sgt Card and John Shingani. During the cross-examination of D/Sgt Card in particular, we see the defence’s attempt to have evidence by state witnesses excluded from Judge De Wet’s decision making on the basis that it was hearsay. According to Kenneth Broun (REF) “The exclusion of this evidence as hearsay would not be sufficient to acquit Mandela and the other principle defendants, but it may have helped to save their lives”.

Witnesses Called

38th State Witness: Bennet Nbuyo Mashiyane – ANC West Bank Branch, East London. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
Under cross-examination Mr Fischer is able to present the majority of evidence given by Bennet Mashiyane as hearsay. In particular, Mr Fischer began by getting Bennet Mashiyane to concede that he had never attended any meetings of the Regional Command, he had never seen the letters or correspondence sent by the Regional Command to the Branches, nor did he have any personal knowledge of who went to the Regional Committee. Any information pertaining to these abovementioned issues were was second-hand knowledge given to Bennet Mashiyane by Masiza.

Mr Fischer went on to ask Bennet Mashiyane if he was absolutely certain about the date that the meeting he described in his examination-in-chief, during which instructions to get more recruits, took place. Bennet Mashiyane confirmed that he was certain the meeting took place in April, 1962, and that both Vuyilsile Mini and Govan Mbeki had been in attendance. Mr Fischer then said calmly, “You see, Mbeki had been arrested in January 1962, and he stood his trial and was discharged towards the end of May 1962”. Bennet Mashiyane backtracked on his previous answer and suddenly remembering that the meeting took place after Mbeki had been released from jail. Mr Fischer did not peruse the issue and asked Bennet Mashiyane why he was giving evidence against the ANC – and organisation of which he had been a loyal and hardworking member for many years.

Bennet Mashiyane claimed that he had not been arrested but had gone to the police station by choice after hearing that the police were looking for him. He was questioned about his relationship with the ANC and was going to deny all knowledge but Ngabela was called into the room and identified Bennet Mashiyane as “the contact of Westbank” and told Bennet Mashiyane to “speak man, speak”. It was following interaction with Mgabela, and being shown a stack of papers the police claimed were all statements made by others, that Bennet Mashiyane made a statement to the police and managed to avoid being held in detention.

Bennet Mashiyane emphasised that the destruction of government property and acts of sabotage were never discussed in ANC Branch meetings and that the policy of the ANC was “that no blood was to be spilt, even after the banning – that is from my knowledge. That is why I don’t know much about the sabotage side of it.”

Mr Fischer then returned attention to the documents he was shown by the police and what was said to him prior to his making a statement. Bennet Mashiyane said that he did not read the papers, D/Sgt Card simply put them in front of him and said “look, these people have spoken” and they told him that he had been mentioned within these statements.

Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar clarifies with the witness that Mgabela, the man who told him to “speak man, speak” was also known as Malcolmes Johnson Kondothi (Item 9, East London, Annexure A). He then asks Bennet Mashiyane to tell the court clearly why he decided to give evidence against his organisation and if – as had been put by the defence to Bruno Mtolo – he felt that in giving evidence he was being a traitor. In response Bennet Mashiyane stated:

I’m not being a traitor, because from my knowledge, the ones who could be referred to as traitors, are the persons who were arrested before we were, because they are the ones who have broken the conditions, because they are the ones who informed the Police, and after we were arrested, they would then be called, and say “well, tell this person how we are conducting this”, and then that person would say, well speak, and then you’d speak. I can’t, therefore, see that I’m a traitor.

40th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Donald John Card – East London. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange.
Mr Fischer began his cross-examination of D/Sgt Card by asking him to summarise briefly the content of the pamphlets released by the ANC which he claimed, during his examination-in-chief, to have been either anti-government or targeting individuals who were seen as anti-Congress. D/Sgt Card described these pamphlets and from this Mr Fischer extrapolated a number of important points for the defence. Mr Fischer argued that there was no evidence that these pamphlets were in fact issued by the ANC and that even if there were proof that some had been issued by the AAC this organisation was not shown to have been linked to the ANC or to have been party to the conspiracy in question.

Furthermore, in regard to the one person mentioned within these pamphlets who had been murdered, there was no allegation made in the indictment that the ANC was responsible, nor was there any charge of incitement to murder. The defence would rely heavily on the fact that the pamphlet in question was not produced by D/Sgt Card to the court, the death in question had yet to be proved by proper evidence, and that there was no evidence that these pamphlets were issued in terms of the conspiracy. Similarly, under cross-examination, Mr Fischer got D/Sgt Card to concede that there was no evidence to show that the anti-government and anti-collaborator slogans painted on walls were done by ANC members, or that they were necessarily authorised by the ANC.

Mr Fischer then turns attention to the 52 people that had been arrested in connection with the acts of sabotage and violence D/Sgt Card gave evidence of during his examination-in-chief. Specifically, Mr Fischer questions D/Sgt Card about how it is that he knew each of these people to have been members of the ANC. D/Sgt Card goes through the entire list of 52 people and details exactly how and when he gained knowledge of their political affiliations, with the majority having admitted to being ANC members after they were arrested.

Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
D/Sgt Card tells Mr Berrange, in response to his questioning, that he had had no dealing with the investigation which resulted in the arrest of Harold Strachan in 1961 and could not give information on the subject.

No re-examination, subject to recalling the witness on circulars.

42nd State Witness: John Tshingane [Shigani, Tshingani] – Taxi Driver, Port Elizabeth. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
The first significant point raised by Mr Berrange in cross-examination was about the confusion John Tshingane had displayed in regard to the dates on which he had transported Nelson Mandela to the sea and, more importantly, when he had spoken of Joseph Jack and said “I am not certain about places” and “Can you fix me up”. Mr Berrange put it to the witness he had said these things because he “had forgotten what [he] had to say”. Mr Berrange explained that this was important because in his evidence-in-chief on Friday he said that the people whom he dropped off at Framesby gone to the left towards where Europeans lived. Despite being questioned at length John Tshingane said nothing on that day of a sub-station in the vicinity. However, when the witness took the stand again on Monday he immediately volunteered the fact that the people had moved towards an electricity sub-station.

John Tshingane denied that anyone had spoken to him about his evidence between the Friday and Monday but the defence argued that it seemed obvious that somebody must have advised the prosecutor on the Monday to re-open the line of questioning which he had previously abandoned on the Friday. After discussing a number of other instances, particularly in regard to date and the identification of certain of the accused, Mr Berrange returns focus to what took place at Framesby and the Labour Bureau and puts it to John Tshingane that his whole story about that night was a complete fabrication.

Mr Berrange tried to make the case that the witness had been induced to make a statement because of the extensive knowledge the police claimed to have had of the events and that, as a 90day detainee, it was very likely that he had been subject to suggestions. When dealing with contradictions that arose in his evidence John Tshingane, on several occasions, blamed the interpreter for having mistranslated his answers. Furthermore, John Tshingane said that because this was his first time in court he did not know the procedures for correcting the interpreter. To this Mr Berrange replied, “That is not true – I know you have been in court before.” John Tshingane tried to persist in his lie by saying he had never been a witness before but Mr Berrange told him that he knew that John Tshingane had given evidence and been cross-examined a month ago during the trial of Dr Pather.

Mr Berrange then asks John Tshingane if he had told the police about the men had had transported to Framesby and the Labour Bureau when he had been taken in for questioning in connection with the Harold Strachan Trial. John Tshingane had not made a statement regarding these events until, two years later, in 1963. Mr Berrange then puts the following to the witness:

Your story that N.7 accompanied you is a tissue of lies; also your two youths story is a tissue of lies. The two youths who gave evidence in Strachan’s case said they left Port Elizabeth before the 16th of December, to go and bomb Engcobo in the Transkei and not in Port Elizabeth…

Also, No.4 will say that you are fabricating your evidence against him. He will say that he was in hiding between the third week of March, 1961, and April, 1961.

In the concluding moments of John Tshingane’s cross-examination Judge De Wet asks him if he had any knowledge of the Mandela badge to which John Tshingane replied that he did not. Judge De Wet then asked him if he was aware of a certain time when acts of sabotages stated all over South Africa to which John Tshingane, yet again, replied that he did not hear about this. Thereafter, a somewhat annoyed Judge De Wet told John Tshingane, “You seem to be particularly ignorant. You can go.”
No re-examination.

Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/9A/49c) (Vol.50/9A/50c) (Vol.50/9A/51c) (Vol.50/9A/52c) (Vol.50/9A/53c) (Vol.50/9B/54c) (Vol.50/9B/55c) (Vol.50/9B/56c) (Vol.50/9B/57c) (Vol.50/9B/58c) (Vol.50/9B/59c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 29 January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Bennet Nyuya Mashiyana (Ms.385/4).
Evidence of John Singani (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
G1 – G105: Evidence includes that by police detectives, and other State witnesses (AD1844.A8.1).
Evidence: DJ Card (AD1844.A12.3).
Evidence: J. Singani (AD1844.A13.1).
Evidence: J. Singani (AD1844.A14.4).
Analysis of evidence: Det. Sgt Card (AD1844.A18.3)
Analysis of evidence: John Singani (AD1844.A18.5)
Evidence: BN Mashiyana (AD1844.A12.1).
Analysis of evidence: Bennet Mashiyana (AD1844.A18.1).
Evaluation of evidence: Bennet Mashiyane (AD1844.Ba8).

Key Words
East London, Port Elizabeth, ANC, Sabotage, Police Witnesses, Nelson Mandela, Govan Mbeki, Raymond Mhlaba.