Item Belt 90e - MP3 - Lionel Bernstein XXD

Description

On this day proceedings began with Mr Berrange’s proposal to call two professors of psychology for the purpose of establishing that prisoners who are kept in isolation under the 90-day detention law. However, before Mr Berrange had even finished uttering the first sentence of his proposal he was interrupted by Judge De Wet who asked, “Are they going to tell me how I must assess the evidence?” Mr Berrange said that was not the intention and that their actual purpose would be to submit evidence, as medical experts, to the effect that people who are kept under 90-day detention are highly susceptible to suggestion, memory loss and in extreme cases even brain damage. Mr Berrange explained that this evidence had been heard and dealt with by Judges in recent cases in both Cape Town and Durban and that it was important because of the necessary scepticism and caution it makes the court adopt when considering statements or evidence given in court by 90-day detainees.

Judge De Wet expressed the opinion that it still amounted to his earlier suggestion that these witnesses were proposed to tell him (Judge De Wet) how to assess certain evidence given in this case. It was on these grounds that Judge De Wet refused to hear the evidence of these two psychology professors which he deemed inadmissible in this case. Having no other witnesses to interpose Mr Berrange instead continued with the examination-in-chief of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.

Mr Berrange did not spend more than three quarters of an hour finishing his examination-in-chief of Lionel Bernstein. The issues discussed were the purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Lionel Bernstein’s visits to the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners, and his knowledge of the document “Operation Mayibuye”. Following this brief examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar began his cross-examination of Lionel Bernstein which would not be completed on this day. The main issues Dr Yutar dealt with during his cross-examination on this day were as follows: the suggestion that Lionel Bernstein had created communistic propaganda which intended to incite various people into violent struggle in South Africa and which falsely informed people abroad about the political conditions in South Africa; the Programme of the South African Communist Party and other documents issued by the SACP; the nature and extent of the partnership between the ANC and the SACP within the NLM; and, finally, the nature of the relationship between the ANC and MK.

One of the most interesting moments on this day was when the defence counsel challenged Dr Yutar’s authority to grant Lionel Bernstein blanket indemnity in regard to any evidence he gave which may incriminate him in regard to joining the illegal SACP after it re-formed underground. Like Raymond Mhlaba, Lionel Bernstein refused to accept the offer for indemnity and chose rather to face the consequences of declining to answer particular questions put to him by Dr Yutar.

Lionel Bernstein’s Evidence

Further examination-in-chief by Mr Berrange.
Lionel Bernstein opened his own evidence-in-chief on this day by informing the court that his counsel had brought to his attention that he had stated in his evidence on Friday that he had known Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, since 1953. Lionel Bernstein told the court that this was an unintentional “slip of the tongue” on his part and that what he had intended to say was that he had known Elias Motsoaledi since 1943. Mr Berrange then began his questioning by returning focus to the matter of Lionel Bernstein’s visits to Liliesleaf Farm.

Lionel Bernstein explained that prior to his house arrest orders in October, 1962, he had gone to Liliesleaf Farm in the evening about once every six weeks in order to engage in discussions with his political colleagues. His house arrest orders subsequently prevented him from leaving his house after 6:00pm and kept Lionel Bernstein “extremely busy during the day” as such his contact with his political colleagues “declined very seriously”. On one of the four or five occasions during which Lionel Bernstein did manage to leave his house during the day he admitted that Michael Harmel had approached him to examine the Liliesleaf property which he said was going to be purchased as a hideout for political activists. He admitted also that he had had a “very shrewd suspicion” that the property was purchased by the Communist Party and this was later confirmed in discussion with his colleagues at the farm.

Mr Berrange then moved on to deal with the question of Lionel Bernstein’s visits to the offices of James Kantor and Partners. Lionel Bernstein said that he had visited the firm’s offices on a number of occasions from 1960 onwards, when Harold Wolpe became a partner in the firm, because he had enlisted their services in connection with handling a number of both legal and professional matters on behalf of Lionel Bernstein. Lionel Bernstein explained that his first interaction with the firm had been in 1957 when Mr Makda had approached him “to appear as an expert witness in a hearing for either the Group Areas Board or the Resettlement Board, on the question of valuation of properties which were being expropriated”. In closing the discussion on this issue Lionel Bernstein stated that he had never done any political work at the offices of James Kantor and Partners at all.

Thereafter Mr Berrange then asked when Lionel Bernstein had seen the document “Operation Mayibuye” for the first time. Lionel Bernstein said that prior to discussions had in preparation for this case he had had no idea of the existence of this document. Finally, in closing his examination-in-chief, Mr Berrange asked Lionel Bernstein to state clearly if he had ever been a member of Umkhonto we Sizwe or the National High Command. Lionel Bernstein replied simply, “No sir, I was not” after which Mr Berrange asked no further questions and Dr Yutar prepared to cross-examine.

Cross-examination by Dr Yutar.
The first question Dr Yutar posed to Lionel Bernstein under cross-examination was if the document Operation Mayibuye had come to him as a surprise. Lionel Bernstein explained that he had not found the existence of such a document surprising at all; only the specific details discussed in the document “certainly” came to him as a surprise. Lionel Bernstein explained that what had surprised him was “the precise operation for guerrilla warfare which is proposed” as well as the suggestion “that it is feasible within a very short space of time”. Dr Yutar somewhat clumsily used this theme of “surprise” to move on to deal with the proposed formation of MK units discussed in Operation Mayibuye and the existing MK units in operation committing acts of sabotage since December, 1961. Lionel Bernstein told the prosecutor that he did not understand the question posed to him asking if he was surprised when he read of the proposed MK units in Operation Mayibuye and Dr Yutar moved on to a new matter - Lionel Bernstein’s communism.

Lionel Bernstein admitted that he joined the Communist Party in 1939 and he would not deny Dr Yutar’s suggestions that to this day he remained an “ardent Communist” and a “loyal disciple of Karl Marx”. During this time, both before and after 1950, Lionel Bernstein also admitted that he had written “articles dealing with the major disputes within international Communistic movements” for publications such as The Fighting Talk, Spark and New Age. Dr Yutar did at this stage get Lionel Bernstein to concede that he was not unfamiliar with the publication Assegai either but did not pursue the topic any further and instead returned attention to the position Lionel Bernstein held in the Communist Party before it was dissolved. Lionel Bernstein explained that at the time it was dissolved he was a member of the Johannesburg District Committee and that he had previously been Secretary of that committee around about 1941. He added that he had never been a member of the Central Committee.

Dr Yutar asked if Lionel Bernstein if he had re-joined the Communist Party at the time the organisation reformed illegally underground. Before Lionel Bernstein could answer, Mr Berrange interjected and suggested that Judge De Wet give the witness the standard warning in regard to this question and allow him to refuse to answer it on the grounds that it may incriminate him in regard to an offence other than those four charged against him in this case. Instead of warning Lionel Bernstein, however, Judge De Wet addressed Dr Yutar and asked “are you prepared to give him an indemnity or not?” Dr Yutar replied “Yes my lord, I give him a blanket indemnity”. Lionel Bernstein then spoke and told the court that “if that offer is seriously made” then he would like the opportunity to discuss it with his counsel before deciding. Dr Yutar said that he was making this offer “in all seriousness” on behalf of the Attorney-General of “a complete indemnity from prosecution by reason of your becoming a member of the Communist Party from 1963 onwards, if in fact that be the case”.

Mr Berrange reiterated that his client wished to discuss the matter with his counsel which caused Judge De Wet to address Lionel Bernstein and say, “Well, why do you want to discuss it? Perhaps I can tell you that that is a valid indemnity Mr. Yutar has the authority to give you that indemnity”. Lionel Bernstein explained that it was not the validity but the scope of the indemnity that he wished to discuss with his counsel. Dr Yutar then said:

Let me put it to you very clearly: it does not, of course, affect the proceedings in this case, the four charges in this case. But I undertake to indemnify you against prosecution against any charges that may be brought hereafter the conclusion of this case against you arising out of the evidence you now give.

In response to this Lionel Bernstein asked, “My lord, is it unreasonable for me to have a small adjournment to discuss this matter with counsel?” At first Judge De Wet suggested that Dr Yutar continue with some other line of questioning so that the witness could consult with his counsel during the later adjournment. Dr Yutar said, however, that the outcome of this indemnity offer had a significant bearing on the thread of questioning he intended to pursue in his remaining cross-examination. As such Judge De Wet eventually agreed to adjourn proceedings until 11:30am so that the matter could be dealt with immediately.

It is worth quoting in full the exchange between Mr Berrange, Judge De Wet, and Dr Yutar, which took placed immediately following the adjournment in regard to the validity of the indemnity offered to Lionel Bernstein:
Mr Berrange: My lord, it would appear as if we, at any rate – I don’t know if anybody else was under any misapprehension, but on a perusal of the Code it seems, my lord, that there is no power for the Attorney-General to offer any indemnity. The only section that deals with that, my lord is Section 254 of the Code, in which it is the Court that ultimately gives the indemnity, and that refers only to persons who are called as witnesses by the prosecution, and who are accomplices.
Judge De Wet: Hasn’t the Attorney-General an inherent right to give a person an indemnity?
Mr Berrange: There is no such provision in the Code, as far as I can see. But my lord, if I can draw your attention to Section 5(3) of the Act, may I make it clear that I don’t for one moment trust my learned friend’s bona fides in this matter: It says: “Every Attorney-General shall exercise . . . (quotes) . . . perform any such function.” So it would appear, my lord, that even if we were prepared to accept my learned friend’s undertaking – that is really what it amounts to, not an indemnity, - an undertaking not to prosecute, the Minister himself has the power to reverse such an undertaking. If my learned friend were able to obtain the consent of the Minister, or an undertaking from the Minister, not to prosecute the witness in respect of any charges which may flow as a result of his answering this question, not only in this, but in other Provinces, my lord, then we might reconsider our position – or may we put it this way, the witness might reconsider his position. The position is my lord, that when we went to discuss the matter with the witness, he wanted to know what authority (he obviously seemed to know the law a bit better than we do) he wanted to know whether my learned friend had the authority, and that is why we went into this matter, and it does not seem to me that he has any authority. He can, of course, give an undertaking, but that is subject to reversal by the Minister. And I think the attitude that is adopted by Mr. Bernstein in this matter is that if he can obtain an undertaking from the Minister, which is applicable not only to this but to all the Provinces of the Republic, in terms of the so-called indemnity that my learned friend has offered to him, then he might very well re-consider his position.
Dr Yutar: May it please your lordship. My lord, I have given an offer of an indemnity, and it is true, in terms of sub-section 5 of section 7 as inserted by Section 45 of Act 60 of 1957, the Minister can reverse my decision in granting indemnities. Now my lord, the position quite simply is this: the Minister has in no way interfered with me in the conduct of this prosecution, and I have no doubt that he would not reverse my offer of an indemnity, but be that as it may, if the indemnity in the terms I have offered is not acceptable, then I am obliged, my lord, to ask your lordship to tell the witness that he must answer the question because of the provisions of Section 228(d). Your lordship will recall that in Count 3 of the Indictment the accused are charged with the contravention of the Suppression of Communism Act to the effect that they committed acts which were calculated to further the achievement of one or more of the objects of Communism…
Judge De Wet (to Mr Berrange): You are not contending that the matter is not relevant, are you Mr. Berrange?
Mr Berrange: My lord that is a matter which we propose to place in argument before your lordship at the argument stage.
Judge De Wet (to the witness): I think you understand, Bernstein, what the position is… According to the law you must answer this question. If you refuse to answer it all I can do is to detain you for 8 days, which is not going to do much harm to you in present circumstances. So you must make up your own mind whether you are going to answer the questions or not.

Having established all of the above conditions Dr Yutar eventually asked Lionel Bernstein once again if he had re-joined the Communist Party in 1953. Lionel Bernstein’s response was “My lord, I am afraid I must decline to answer that question” on the grounds that it may incriminate him in charges which were not before the court. Dr Yutar said that Lionel Bernstein could have simply answered “no” if he had not re-joined it but Lionel Bernstein retorted that that was a deduction which he would leave the court to draw or not to draw. Dr Yutar then put it to Lionel Bernstein that, despite his reluctance answer the question of his membership to the SACP underground, he remained an open and committed Communist. Lionel Bernstein admitted that he was a Communist “by belief” and that he had written many articles and subscribed to many publications of “a communist nature”.

Dr Yutar then put it to Lionel Bernstein that the immediate short-term policy of the Communist Party, which was to “alleviate the ‘oppression of the oppressed peoples’ in this country”, was the same as the long-term policy of the ANC. Lionel Bernstein said that in general this was a correct understanding. Dr Yutar then put it to him that the court had been told that Albert Luthuli, Nelson Mandela, and Walter Sisulu, were all leading figures in the ANC and asked Lionel Bernstein who the leader of the SACP was. Lionel Bernstein declined to answer the question on the grounds that “my conscience will not permit me to disclose the names of people who participated in unlawful organisations” but conceded that he did know who some of the leaders were. He went on to explain that there was no one leader of the SACP but a leading committee with a number of members whom he refused to identify.

Dr Yutar then dealt with the matter of the headquarters of the SACP which Lionel Bernstein admitted were in Johannesburg as far as he knew but, other than that, he had no idea where the SACP had its permanent offices if it had any such place at all whilst operating underground between 1953 and 1960. Dr Yutar then asked how the SACP had functioned as part of the National Liberation Movement if it had not been part of the Joint Executives consultation structure and processes. Lionel Bernstein explained:

My lord, it is an independent organisation. It functioned independently, and the broad line of policy was similar on many issues to those of the Congresses, but it did not meet as an organisation, to the best of my knowledge, with the leading bodies of the Congress.

Lionel Bernstein explained further that he had attended meetings of the Joint Executives on many occasions, as a representative of the COD, and had never seen a representative of the SACP attend these meetings. Dr Yutar made the suggestion that the way in which communists operated in this country was to infiltrate other political organisations “and in that way they would capture and control these various organisations”. Lionel Bernstein did not accept Dr Yutar’s formulation but did acknowledge that “on some occasions when their point of view is the majority point of view they no doubt manage to achieve control of some of these organisations. It is not invariable”. He went on to also deny Dr Yutar’s further suggestion that communists dominated the trade unions in South Africa despite the fact that there were a number of communists within the membership of the Congress of Trade Unions. Dr Yutar stated that there were also communists in leading positions in the ANC, the Indian Congress, the Coloured Peoples’ Congress, and the COD. He then put it to Lionel Bernstein “quite bluntly” that the policy of the Communist Party “is abhorrent to the West in general” and “to the majority of people in this country”.

Lionel Bernstein would not subscribe to either part of Dr Yutar’s suggestion. First he argued that the idea of communism had both supporters and people who found it abhorrent in the West; and second, he argued that “the opinion of the majority of the people in this country has never been tested on the question”. After further discussion in this regard Dr Yutar eventually put it to Lionel Bernstein that the Communist Party had in fact used the ANC, and its senior status within the NLM, in order to propagate its own communist aims and objects. In response to this suggestion Lionel Bernstein said:

No I don’t accept that. I don’t think the leaders of the African National Congress are people of a calibre who allow themselves to be used by just anybody who wants to make use of them. They are leaders in their own right, capable of deciding their own direction, and they do so, sir, not because they are being used by others, but because they have decided for themselves what is correct.

Thereafter, Dr Yutar made the suggestion that in fact the Communist Party and the ANC “worked together as partners, full partners, in the National Liberation Movement”. Lionel Bernstein rejected this suggestion on the basis that “That would imply that they met together, and decided common policy together. I am not aware that that took place during the period you are speaking of, sir”. Returning to the matter of the headquarters of the Communist Party, briefly touched upon earlier, Dr Yutar asked “if the Communist Party managed without headquarters from 1953 to 1960, why did the need arise in 1961 to establish a headquarters?” Lionel Bernstein repeated yet again that Rivonia was bought as a hideout for political activist of the NLM, so that they could avoid the police and continue their political work, and was not purchased as the headquarters for the Communist Party. The prosecutor then asked who exactly had been in hiding when the Rivonia property was purchased. Lionel Bernstein hesitantly answered that the only people he knew of who in hiding at Rivonia in 1961 were “all people who are accused here in the dock”. As such Lionel Bernstein could not indicate a single communist who had been in hiding at Liliesleaf Farm when it was first purchased except those sitting in the dock “who might be communist”.

Before moving on to deal with other issues Dr Yutar asked Lionel Bernstein why he had not asked Michael Harmel questions about the purpose for which Liliesleaf Farm was being purchased at the time he was first approached to value the property. Lionel Bernstein said that he had deliberately not asked many questions because he was aware of Michael Harmel’s communist beliefs and purposefully did not want to know more details than he absolutely had to know in order to do his architectural evaluation work. Dr Yutar then surmised:

So Mr. Bernstein we have this position then: that although one of the first reasons you give for the purchase of Rivonia by the Communist Party was to serve as a political hideout, throughout its whole existence not a single Communist, as such, was ever housed there or ever used Rivonia as a hideout?

Lionel Bernstein confirmed that to his knowledge this was the case. Dr Yutar then argued that if not communist had ever used Rivonia as a hideout then it must have been used for the second reason offered by Lionel Bernstein – that is as a location from which to do the work of the Communist Party. Although he did not make the suggestion plainly it is clear that Dr Yutar was inferring that Rivonia was the headquarters of the SACP. In light of this implicit inference Lionel Bernstein repeated that only “some work” for the Communist Party was done at Rivonia.

Dr Yutar then drew attention to Exhibits CM and CP which were both documents issued by the SACP. Exhibit CP dealt with the introduction of the Suppression of Communism Act in 1950 and, from its wording, appeared to have been issued sometime after the introduction of the Sabotage Act in June, 1962. The document stated that neither of the above acts would “put an end either to sabotage or to Communism” and it was from this basis Dr Yutar suggested that Lionel Bernstein subscribed to the Communist policy and aim of overthrowing the South African government by force and violence if need be. A short while later Dr Yutar made the related suggestion to Lionel Bernstein that “the Communist Party incited the non-Europeans in this country to overthrow the South African government, if needs be, by violence”. Lionel Bernstein rejected this suggestion and said that the position was that:

It urged the people to struggle against the South African Government, to bring about its downfall. I don’t think that at any time that I know of they actually incited the people to the violent overthrow of the South African Government.

Dr Yutar insisted that “the hallmark of Communists everywhere [was] to achieve its ultimate goal by revolution if necessary” and Lionel Bernstein retorted that “the ‘If necessary’ is the important part”. Dr Yutar then argued that since both the ANC and the SACP had tried to get the government to capitulate to its demands without any appreciable relenting on the part of the government it stood to reason that the NLM had reached the stage of “an impasse”. Lionel Bernstein said that he believed that even now there were prospects that such a stage could be reached very soon in South Africa but did would not concede to Dr Yutar’s implication that when such an impasse was reached (if it had not already been reached) it would necessitate violent revolutionary methods. Lionel Bernstein explained that:

The question of going over to a policy of violence is not because the demands of the African National Congress or the Communist Party have not been met. Both of these organisations date back over 30 years, and in the whole of that period I think they can both say that their demands have not been met. The going over to violence was not as a result that their demands had not been met, but of the fact that no other possible means of expressing their demands were left open to them.

In justifying why he rejected the claim that the ANC had gone over to a policy of violence, which was made in Exhibit CP issued by the SACP, Lionel Bernstein said, “My lord, I think Communists are just as fallible as other people – they also make mistakes”. When Dr Yutar asked Lionel Bernstein to explain the meaning of the terms “Hit Back” and “fight for freedom” used frequently in this and other documents, the witness explained:

My Lord, the Communist Party has used this sort of phraseology ever since its foundation. It means, just what it says, let us unite, and dedicate ourselves to a struggle, if you like, to… I can’t think of a better word, to a fight for freedom. It does not connote necessarily arms or violence. It is a phrase that was used – for three years in the Treason Trial we heard this phrase being quoted from every speech and document produced at that case. The word was used over and over again. It did not connote a policy of violence, and still doesn’t.

At this stage Judge De Wet imposed himself directly into the discussion by suggesting that there was an important issue which Lionel Bernstein was neglecting. Judge De Wet said:

I agree with you that at the time when there was no violence being done in the country, this would simply be the ordinary propaganda but this propaganda is made in the light of certain events [acts of sabotage under the auspices of MK] that were taking place, and were known by every reader to be taking place… Well, isn’t it incitement to the readers to join the violence?

Lionel Bernstein’s answer was that the document was inciting people to join the struggle which had taken on many forms by this stage only one of which was violence. When Judge De Wet asked what other forms of struggle were in existence and known to the general public in June, 1962, Lionel Bernstein explained that “a great deal of attention was being paid, for instance, to the preparation of a campaign against passes… I don’t think that one can say that the only activity that was going on was violence”. When Dr Yutar resumed his questioning Lionel Bernstein maintained that violence was not the main form of political struggle of either the ANC or the SACP during this time. Dr Yutar, however, suggested that all other forms of political action by these two organisations were merely ancillary acts “to set aflame even more vigorously the spirit of the people to fight, by violence if needs be”. In response to this suggestion Lionel Bernstein responded that it was in fact “the other way around” and that “acts of sabotage were an attempt to inspire the people to carry on the political struggle”.

The next major suggestion made by Dr Yutar was that Lionel Bernstein, in his capacity as a member of the SACP and as an individual, “have disseminated false propaganda abroad about conditions in this country”. While Lionel Bernstein would not deny that he “may be fallible” and “might have on occasion made a mistake on facts” but he did otherwise denied the state’s suggestion. Dr Yutar spent much time leading Lionel Bernstein in relation to the SACP issued documents (Exhibits CP.1 and CP.2) and its passages which he claimed incited members of the Congress Alliance to engage in violent methods of struggle as “Freedom Fighters” – after which Judge De Wet called for the lunchtime adjournment.

After the adjournment Dr Yutar turned attention to Exhibit CN which was the document Reverend Crawford had received by mail at his private address in Cape Town on 1st August, 1961. In reference to this particular exhibit, Lionel Bernstein admitted that throughout its entire existence the Communist Party “advocated the building of these [Congress] organisations and attempted in every way to assist and strengthen them”. He also concede, on the basis of what was written in this document, that the SACP had always invited ANC members into its ranks. Dr Yutar then commented on the fact that the organisation formerly known as the Communist Party of South Africa had now changed its name to the South African Communist Party but Lionel Bernstein offered no explanation for this.

Dr Yutar went on to put a number of addition exhibits to Lionel Bernstein, all of which were alleged to have been issued by the SACP. In so doing, at one point the matter of Sharpeville came up and a scathing critique thereof in a particular issue of Fighting Talk. Dr Yutar asked if Lionel Bernstein had bothered to read the findings of the inquest which was held in regard to the events at Sharpeville and Lionel Bernstein answered that he had only read summarised digests of the proceedings. To this Dr Yutar said, “Pity – because then you might have changed your view and not have called it ‘The Government Slaughter at Sharpeville’” and went on to suggest that the Sharpeville moment was precisely the one in which “the impasse” had been reached in which “the Government refused to talk it out around a table and now there is only one alternative, and that is to shoot it out to the death”. Lionel Bernstein rejected this suggestion and added that not only were alternatives available in 1962 but there were still alternatives presently available in 1964 despite the history of non-cooperation the NLM had with the apartheid government.

The two documents on which Dr Yutar spent the most time on in cross-examination at this stage were Exhibits R.78 and R.39. Lionel Bernstein admitted that Exhibit R.78, entitled “Our New Draft Programme”, gave the reasons which explained the existence of Exhibit R.39 which was entitled “The Programme of the South African Communist Party: The Road to South African Freedom”. In regard to the first of these two exhibits Dr Yutar focused extensively on what was meant by the statement “South Africa itself is ripe for, and is approaching the beginning of, a National Democratic Revolution”. Lionel Bernstein explained that the phrase National Democratic Revolution did not refer to tactics such as sabotage and guerrilla warfare, as suggested by Dr Yutar, but instead he explained it as a concept:

Dealing with changing society. When Communists talk about a radical transformation of society they call it a revolution and that is completely independent of any consideration of methods – it has got nothing to do with methods at all.

Dr Yutar read several excerpts from Exhibit R.78 before turning his attention to Exhibit R.39 believing that he had dealt adequately with the reasons for the programme in reference to the former draft document. Lionel Bernstein indicated that he took Exhibit R.39 to be an official document, and therefore a reflection of official policy, of the SACP which he supported as a communist. Dr Yutar then read extensively from the document until Lionel Bernstein eventually spoke and said:

I think you are reading it absolutely upside-down, sir. What is said is that the prospect of non-violent transition will be enhanced by the development of militant peoples’ forces. In other words, the prospect of peaceful transition in this country has been improved by the emergence of militant and if you like, violent, peoples’ forces.

Dr Yutar referred to the document which claimed that “political power comes out the barrel of a gun” and suggested that Lionel Bernstein was basically saying that if a man pointed a gun at another man’s head and said “give me your money” but did not pull the trigger then this was a peaceful method of obtaining his property. Lionel Bernstein responded:

My Lord, that is not the analogy. If the gun is being pointed at a man who is unarmed, it is being pointed by the Government at the unarmed non-white people… Then what enhances the prospect of peaceful negotiation and settlement in this country is that, if one man is going to point a gun, the other man should have a gun to defend himself. Then there might be prospect for talk. That is what this document is saying.

Dr Yutar then asked if Mk units or the Communist Party was to “derail a train and kill innocent people” would it “enhance your peaceful methods of pamphlet distribution and strikes”. Lionel Bernstein did not fall into the trap of addressing Dr Yutar’s belligerent and sarcastic manner of posing questions in this regard and merely repeated the answer he just given and eventually added, “I am saying that the only gun being pointed in this country in the first place… was pointed by the Government”. Lionel Bernstein admitted that the acts of sabotage which had been committed so far had not brought about any concessions from the government but refused to concede that this meant that guerrilla warfare and armed struggle were the only remain options and immediate next phase to be adopted in the struggle.

Dr Yutar then made the suggestion that Lionel Bernstein had not participated in any acts of sabotage because this “dirty work” had been left for the “rank and file natives” of the NLM. Lionel Bernstein obviously rejected this suggestion and said that acts of sabotage were carried out by MK units some of whose members were Europeans – but he refused to name any aside from Harold Strachan, Jack Hodgson, Arthur Goldreich, Harold Wolpe and Ben Turok, who had all been alleged to be members of MK in evidence given for this case. Dr Yutar then said, “Oh no – those gentlemen were very careful. They merely taught the natives how to blow up, they did not do any blowing up themselves!” Lionel Bernstein responded, “Well, it seems to me you are jumping to conclusions, sir. There is no evidence to that effect”. When Dr Yutar then said that Lionel Bernstein could not suggest one instance in which a European had blown something up, Lionel Bernstein responded, “And I cannot tell you of a single non-European who blew anything up either”.

After spending much time dealing with the question of sabotage and the ANC’s purported turn to a policy of violence, Dr Yutar returned to the question of the SACP’s role in the NLM and asked why it was not included in the meetings of the Joint Executives. Lionel Bernstein explained, yet again, that it was “for the precise reason that these were the Joint Executives of the Congresses, and the Communist Party was not one of the Congresses”. At one point Judge De Wet asked Lionel Bernstein what was meant (in Exhibit R.61) in the statement claiming that the MK was under the direction of the ANC. Lionel Bernstein answered:
My lord, in a general sense Umkhonto is under the direction of the African National Congress. If I can explain it this way, sir: if Umkhonto we Sizwe were to take a decision that in future it will conduct its struggle by the systematic assassination of white people, regardless of which white people, they would just systematically assassinate, my Lord, there is nothing constitutionally which can prevent them taking such a decision. They can take it, and they can attempt to carry it out, but the minute they take such a decision, which runs clearly counter and contrary to the policy of the African National Congress, the African National Congress will inform all its members, both in the leadership and in the units of Umkhonto we Sizwe, that if you follow out this policy, you are breaking the policy of the African National Congress and you must choose: either you follow our policy, or theirs. Since the African National Congress is the older organisation, it has much longer and stronger loyalty from its members in my view than Umkhonto, I think if such a situation developed, my lord, the members and those in the leadership of Umkhonto who owe loyalty to the A.N.C. would say ‘In this situation we cannot persist in this decision, we have taken a bad policy’. So to this extent, as I understand it, the African National Congress exercises a virtual veto over the broad general policy of Umkhonto.

Dr Yutar tried to argue that there was no difference between this and an instance in which “a company forms a sub-committee and allots a certain task to that sub-committee” which was challenged by Lionel Bernstein who dismissed this analogy as well. The issue of the relationship between the ANC and MK was discussed a short while longer before Judge De Wet called for an adjournment until the following morning at 10:00am.

Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.53/11A/84e) (Vol.53/11A/85e) (Vol.53/11A/86e) (Vol.53/11A/87e) (Vol.53/11A/88e) (Vol.53/11B/89e) (Vol.53/11B/90e) (Vol.53/11B/91e).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th May, 1964, (Ms.385/36/1).
File containing details about Accused Nos. 1-7: TS, Accused No.6 [Lionel Bernstein] (MS.385/31/3/7).
Lionel Bernstein [Acc.No.6] – incomplete. Marked AA4. (MS.385/9).
WITS Historical Papers:
Lionel Bernstein’s Evidence (3 Folders). (AD1844.A26.1).
Extract of Lionel Bernstein’s Evidence (copy). (AD1844.A26.2).

Key Words
Lionel Bernstein, SACP, Communism, COD, NLM, ANC, Liliesleaf Farm, Revolution, Violence, Propaganda.