Item Belt 74e - DB - Raymond Mhlaba XXD

Description

Dr Yutar indicated at the outset of his cross-examination on this day that he would be dealing with the state’s suggestion that the ANC had in fact adopted a policy of violence and that Ahmed Kathrada was aware of this policy change. In dealing with this matter Dr Yutar drew first on a number of exhibits which he argued showed that the Communist Party acknowledged and supported the ANC’s policy shift to one of violence as their own policy was one which advocated the revolutionary ousting of the current South African government by violent means if necessary. In relation to these documents Ahmed Kathrada was resolute in his position that it was an overstatement for them to suggest that the MK was the military wing of the ANC and that this did not reflect his understanding of the MK place which was as an independent organisation under the guidance of the NLM.

Many other issues, most of which had already been partially dealt with on previous days, were addressed before Dr Yutar finally concluded his cross-examination and allowed Mr Berrange the opportunity to re-examine Ahmed Kathrada. The main issued discussed under re-examination were: Ahmed Kathrada’s understanding of the nature and role of MK in the NLM; the money he received for the Free Nelson Mandela Campaign Committee via Harold Wolpe; the clothing Ahmed Kathrada had at Mountain View and Liliesleaf Farm; the issue of the “responsible leadership” of the NLM; as well as the National Liberation Committee’s position in regard to the NLM and the MK in particular.

Following the re-examination of Ahmed Kathrada, Accused No.7, Raymond Mhlaba, took up his position in the witness box. Mr Berrange was given the task of examining Raymond Mhlaba for the defence and did so in a much shorter amount of time in comparison with the previous two witnesses. In brief, Mr Berrange’s examination-in-chief of Raymond Mhlaba presented the accused as a loyal and dedicated member of the ANC whose political activities have always been confined to his speciality which was organisational work. An interesting tactic adopted by the defence was seen in regard to Mr Berrange’s acknowledgement that Raymond Mhlaba was engaged in completing a secret assignment for the ANC, for a period of one year and two months between late-1962 and early-1963, about which Raymond Mhlaba refused to give the court any details.

This would become a pertinent issue during his cross-examination on the following day, but was not dealt with by Dr Yutar during this day’s proceedings. The main issues which were dealt with by Dr Yutar on this day were: the acts of sabotage in the Eastern Cape state witnesses’ evidence alleged to have involved Raymond Mhlaba; the two documents found by police in Raymond Mhlaba’s overalls on the day of the Rivonia raid; as well as Raymond Mhlaba’s relationship with the operations of MK.

Ahmed Kathrada’s Evidence

Dr Yutar began by returning his attention to the discussion Ahmed Kathrada had with Nelson Mandela at Rivonia in December, 1961, during which he was told about the country-wide formation of Umkhonto we Sizwe by leading members of the ANC and other individuals. Ahmed Kathrada said that because MK operated under the guidance of the NLM, and the ANC which headed the NLM, founding members of MK such as Govan Mbeki would not have renounced their allegiance or loyalty to the ANC. Ahmed Kathrada was willing to concede to Dr Yutar’s suggestion that the ANC was supporting MK “by reason of the leading members it made available to the MK to carry out the policy of the MK” but refused to admit that the ANC regarded the MK as its military wing.

Dr Yutar put three suggestions “pointedly” to Ahmed Kathrada. The first was that “you did know and the documents say so, that the MK was the military wing of the ANC” and the second was that “when you declared to Mandela and to your colleagues that sabotage, isolated acts of sabotage was ineffective, that what you really had in mind was not mass political action by way of pamphlets and strikes, but something much more serious – guerrilla warfare, armed revolution!”. Ahmed Kathrada denied both suggestions without elaboration before Dr Yutar launched into his third and final proposition that “You knew too that the ANC had now gone over from a non-violent policy to a violent policy”. Ahmed Kathrada said that his understanding was that the ANC’s policy shifted in that it would no longer condemn certain controlled methods of violence in the struggle for freedom.

Before coming to the documents which Dr Yutar claimed would show that the ANC had abandoned its policy of nonviolence for one of violence executed by its military wing he first put it to Ahmed Kathrada “that you were an ardent Communist almost from infancy. And that almost from infancy you were fed on the bottle of Communistic doctrine and literature?” Ahmed Kathrada’s response to this dramatic turn of phrase was to say “Well, I wouldn’t put it that was. I have read and been in touch with Communist propaganda”. From this basis Dr Yutar went into an analysis of Exhibit R.40, a statement issued by the Central Committee of the SACP to its members in February, 1963, in which MK was named as the fighting wing of the ANC. Ahmed Kathrada insisted that this particular statement in the document was an overstatement which did not correspond with his understanding of the MK as an independent organisation under the guidance of the NLM and thus the ANC by extension.

Dr Yutar spent a significant amount of time going through this and other related documents before moving on to Exhibit R.51, which was also a document issued by the SACP, in which the ANC was said to have “finally discarded the line of non-violence” and had “adopted the attitude that force must be met with force… an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. The other key aspect of this document focused on by Dr Yutar was the sentence which read “But the fact remains that the masses of the people are not aware of this new line of the A.N.C.”. Once again Ahmed Kathrada told the court that this was an overstatement which did not reflect his understanding of the ANC’s policy. However, he would not disagree with the fact that the majority of people were unaware of the nature of the ANC’s policy shift in 1961.

Thereafter, still reading from exhibit R.51, Dr Yutar asked Ahmed Kathrada to describe the constituting bodies of the Joint Executive. Ahmed Kathrada listed the SAIC, ANC, SACPC, COD, and SACTU as the constituents of the NLM and explained that the Joint Executive, referred to in this document, was one level at which the affairs of the NLM were discussed from time to time when issues came up. Ahmed Kathrada said that the MK placed itself under the political guidance of the NLM but would not agree with Dr Yutar’s suggestion that it worked under the guidance of the Joint Executive. A short while later Dr Yutar made the proposition that Ahmed Kathrada “as a Communist agitator, from time to time, participated in a dissemination of literature which was absolutely false, in order to mislead the masses and to incite them!” Ahmed Kathrada replied, “I deny that most categorically”.

In evidencing his above proposition, Dr Yutar drew yet another comparison between South Africa and Ghana. In this instance he argued that the situation in Ghana in which judges and magistrates were being “sacked” when seen to have acted against government interests would never transpire in South Africa in contrast with what was suggested in NLM propaganda (such as Exhibit R.40). He argued that the fact that points of law had been raised and upheld against the state and its first interdict in this very case was evidence of the fact that propaganda written by Ahmed Kathrada and his colleagues – which “incit[ed] the people over here by telling them you can’t trust the white Judges, you can’t tryst the white Magistrates” – was false information. Ahmed Kathrada said “I am prepared to say that we will reach a stage when Judges will be sacked” but beyond that told the court that he had nothing to do with the document and the views it expressed.

Thereafter Dr Yutar turned to deal with the issue of finance. Ahmed Kathrada admitted that he had received R295.00 from the offices of James Kantor and Partners in 1962. He explained that this money was to be sent to Duma Nokwe who was Treasurer of the Free Mandela Campaign Committee in furtherance of the campaign. Ahmed Kathrada said that he was not told where the money was coming from and refused to say who else served with Duma Nokwe on this committee. Dr Yutar then asked Ahmed Kathrada who told him that Liliesleaf Farm had been purchased by the SACP when he first visited the place. Ahmed Kathrada refused to divulge that information and maintained that the purpose of the property was for it to be used as a hideout for those, like himself, who had gone underground to continue their political work. He refused to say who invited him to re-join the SACP in 1957 and only offered the small admission that he was a member of a group and not a cell in the SACP – he added that “I’ve never ever in all my years in the Communist Party, never heard the groups being referred to as cells” and had only ever heard it from Bruno Mtolo in this case.

“Where were the headquarters of the Communist Party” asked Dr Yutar, only to receive the response of “I will not tell you”. Ahmed Kathrada was only prepared to admit that Rivonia had been used by Accused Nos.1, 2, 4, and 7, as well as himself, as a hideout before they all moved to Travallyn expect for Ahmed Kathrada who moved to Mountain View. Dr Yutar did managed to get Ahmed Kathrada to concede that much of the work which was done at Rivonia – such as meetings, issuing directives, drafting circulars, and so on – was in line with the kind of functions which would be done at a political headquarters. From this basis Dr Yutar suggested that Rivonia was the headquarters of both the SACP and the ANC underground. Eventually Ahmed Kathrada said, “My lord, I don’t want to keep on denying that. If you insist that that is the only definition of headquarters, I’ll agree with you”. Dr Yutar added, “And it was the headquarters of the Umkhonto we Sizwe?” to which Ahmed Kathrada replied, “I did not understand it that way, but I’m prepared to concede to that as well”.

Dr Yutar went on, thereafter, to deal with exactly what work Ahmed Kathrada knew had been done by the SACP and the ANC at Rivonia. Ahmed Kathrada claimed that he only ever saw one document being drafted at Rivonia in connection with the SACP but refused to say who had been working on it. He then admitted that he had personally worked on four documents for the ANC at Rivonia and had seen others whom he would not name working in connection with ANC affairs there too. In regard to MK, Ahmed Kathrada said that he had only seen one document (Exhibit R.46 and R.54 – Speaker’s Notes) and had heard certain discussions concerning MK at Rivonia but was unprepared to divulge the identity of any persons involved. In dealing with the eight days he spent at Mountain View prior to his arrest, Ahmed Kathrada claimed to have posted all of the documents he worked on there before leaving for Rivonia on the 10th. This was key to his submission that none of the documents which were burnt at Mountain View were his.

Dr Yutar asked Ahmed Kathrada if it was true or not that the document Operation Mayibuye (Exhibit R.71) was left laying open on the table of the Thatched Cottage when the police arrived and Ahmed Kathrada jumped out the window. Ahmed Kathrada did not want to say that this evidence was true when Dr Yutar put the question to him three times in a row and chose to say instead, “That is what I heard in Court”. When Dr Yutar continued to push him for a definitive answer, Ahmed Kathrada said, “I cannot tell. I was not aware of it until I heard it here” but was sure that he had never discussed the document at Rivonia. Dr Yutar then said, “I suppose the flight of you out the window caused this stir in the atmosphere and opened the document”, to which Ahmed Kathrada replied, “I suppose so”.

In closing Dr Yutar got Ahmed Kathrada to admit that he was a member and loyal follower of the SACP who committed himself to achieving the aim of securing freedom for the oppressed people in South Africa by overthrowing the existing government by means of violence if necessary.

Re-examination by Mr Berrange.
Mr Berrange began by referring Ahmed Kathrada to Exhibit R.40 and dealt with the reasons why Ahmed Kathrada had correctly identified this document as a draft despite Dr Yutar’s suggestion that it was a final version. Mr Berrange also clarified that Exhibit R.21, headed “The Revolutionary Way Out”, was according to Ahmed Kathrada most probably the final version of the draft Exhibit R.40. Reading from Exhibit R.121 Mr Berrange showed that the document made “no reference whatsoever to the words that the Liberation Movement is headed by the African National Congress and its fighting wing the Umkhonto we Sizwe”. Ahmed Kathrada agreed that this had been deliberately left out in the finished article. Mr Berrange surmised from Exhibit R.121 that “you were obviously not the only person who thought, that is if this was a draft, who thought this was an overstatement and an incorrect statement”.

Mr Berrange then asked Ahmed Kathrada to clarify what he understood by the phrase “Militant policy” appearing in Exhibit R.40. Ahmed Kathrada explained that:

As far as I am personally concerned, and throughout the years in the Congress movement, the word “militant” has been used as I said even during the Defiance Campaign, and even before that, when referring to those non-violent movements of the non-European people.

Thereafter Mr Berrange dealt quickly with a number of clarifications in regard to issued raised during Ahmed Kathrada’s cross-examination. Ahmed Kathrada clarified that he had nothing to do with the document which criticised the courts in South Africa (Exhibit R.40) and that the R.295.00 he had received for the Free Nelson Mandela Campaign was given to him by Harold Wolpe. After some further discussion Mr Berrange eventually came to deal with what he called “the tone of great disbelief” with which Dr Yutar had asked Ahmed Kathrada if he had really never before seen the document Operation Mayibuye which was purportedly lying open on the table in the Thatched Cottage when the police arrived. In regard to this subject Ahmed Kathrada said that he could recall quite a few booklets and paper being on that table throughout his stay at Rivonia.

The next matter dealt with was the clothing Ahmed Kathrada had at Rivonia and Mountain View. Ahmed Kathrada explained that when he arrived at Rivonia he packed the clothing which he had left on the property to be washed along with the new clothes bought for him by Denis Goldberg into a bag to take with him to Mountain View – which was precisely how the police had found his possessions during the raid. Mr Berrange then dealt with the matter of religion which had been put to Ahmed Kathrada in at least two ways by Dr Yutar for reasons unbeknown to Mr Berrange. Firstly, Dr Yutar had suggested that the SACP was an anti-religious organisation and, secondly, he had made a point of the fact that Ahmed Kathrada was Muslim. Ahmed Kathrada confirmed that Mr Berrange was correct in stating that:
You have never been asked during all the years that you’d been in the Communist Party to forsake your religion… That is despite the fact, as we well know, that the Marxism has a philosophy which is based upon the materialistic concept as opposed to the philosophy of idealism.

Mr Berrange added that the acceptance of religious members was the policy and practice of Communist Parties across the world and Ahmed Kathrada cited the examples of the relationship between Catholicism and Marxism in Italy and Hungary in validating Mr Berrange’s point. Once Mr Berrange had satisfied himself in regard to the matter of religion he turned attention to the “disbelief” Dr Yutar had once again expressed this time in relation to the claim that Ahmed Kathrada only heard about the formation of MK in December, 1961, when Nelson Mandela told him thereof at Rivonia. Ahmed Kathrada explained that the reason he (unlike the prosecutor) was not surprised that he only heard of MK’s formation in December was because this was the first time he had seen Nelson Mandela since the latter had gone underground.

Ahmed Kathrada then stated that he considered himself to be an activist in the Indian Congress but not a “theoretician or a policy maker”. As such it was never likely that he would have been told beforehand by the leaders of the Indian Congress about a secret as closely guarded as that of the formation of MK – assuming that those leaders knew about it. Mr Berrange asked Ahmed Kathrada to give the court an idea of the membership of the Transvaal Indian Congress Executive Committee and the South African Indian Congress Executive. Ahmed Kathrada explained that when he served on the Transvaal Indian Congress Executive Committee, prior to December 1961, there were 25 members. Although he had never served on any committee or as a representative of the South African Indian Congress Executive, which held its headquarters in Durban, he was aware that 20 members served on its Executive Committee.

Turning to the matter of Africa Publications, and Exhibits R.214 and R.215 in particular, Ahmed Kathrada stated that these two booklets were perfectly legal, and could be sold legally, at the time he and Suliman Saloojee had printed them. Mr Berrange then spent a significant amount of time seeking clarification on whether the mass action on 1st May, 1950, during which the state murdered 18 people, was planned as a strike or a “stay-at-home”. Ahmed Kathrada seemed confused in the responses he gave in this regard. Eventually he settled on the position that:

It was a strike or a stay at home, I don’t know how it was called. I don’t remember what language was used, but thereafter in all the strikes that were held, the language was stay at home.

Ahmed Kathrada explained that this was decided upon in order to provide no opportunity for violent intervention by the state security forces. The 26th of June, 1950, according to Ahmed Kathrada, “was thereafter observed, immediately thereafter observed, as a day of mourning and protest”. The people were called upon to stay in their homes and “There was no violence whatsoever. Throughout South Africa there was a very wide response to the call of the Congress”. Mr Berrange thereafter led Ahmed Kathrada to reiterate his belief that all non-violent forms of struggle aimed at “trying to get the Government to change its mind, in regard to the whole police of apartheid and the colour bar” had not yet been exhausted. Ahmed Kathrada agreed that the emergence of the Progressive Party and the expressed views of prominent Afrikaner intellectuals were signs that change could still be brought about by peaceful means in South Africa.

Mr Berrange then came to deal with the “responsible leadership” of the NLM which Dr Yutar had worked so hard to discredit during his cross-examination. In challenging Dr Yutar’s scepticism in this regard Mr Berrange, through Ahmed Kathrada, mentioned leaders such as Andrew Masindu, who was a lecturer of applied mathematics at the University of Fort Hare before he was sentenced to five years imprisonment for sabotage, as well as Mr Yankwa and Mr Mbeli who were both lawyers that had been sentenced along with five other men “just the other day in Ladysmith”.

The final matter dealt with by Mr Berrange in this re-examination was that of the acts of sabotage which the National Committee for Liberation had claimed responsibility for. At first Ahmed Kathrada said, “The National Committee of what?” and made Mr Berrange go through the newspaper article in which this claim was reported before stating, “My lord, I have no personal knowledge of it, but it is an organisation of which we heard from time to time claiming acts of sabotage that took place. From about 1961 onwards”. When Judge De Wet asked if it had nothing to do with the NLM Ahmed Kathrada replied, “Well my lord, insofar as they worked for the same ends I would say that they are part of the National Liberation Movement”.

Following this response Mr Berrange said, “My learned friend seems to be amused at that, so I think you had better explain at any rate for his benefit, what you mean by that?” Ahmed Kathrada explained:

Well my lord, I think I have explained that my definition of National Liberation Movement is anybody who aspires for the freedom of the people of this country… Whether they be organisations or individuals, whether they are within the Congress movement or without.

Mr Berrange asked Ahmed Kathrada to tell the court if there was any difference between Umkhonto we Sizwe and the National Liberation Movement. Ahmed Kathrada replied, “Well my lord, I have personally met members of the Umkonto We Sizwe. I have not met anybody from the National Liberation Committee. To me it appears as if they are two different organisations”. And with that Mr Berrange concluded his re-examination of Ahmed Kathrada who subsequently stepped down from the witness box.

Evidence of Raymond Mhlaba

Examination-in-chief by Mr Berrange.
Raymond Mhlaba began his examination-in-chief by telling Mr Berrange that he was 44 years old had worked as a clerk and messenger for an attorneys’ firm in Port Elizabeth from June, 1942 until October, 1961. It was during this time that Raymond Mhlaba admitted to have become interested in trade union politics and the programme of the Communist Party. From 1945 until 1953 Raymond Mhlaba actively involved himself in work of the Trade Union Movement and, to a lesser extent, became involved in the Communist Party. Furthermore, he joined the ANC in 1944 and after the Communist party was banned in 1950 he devoted himself and his efforts entirely to the ANC in the Cape Province.

Mr Berrange acknowledged at this early stage that Raymond Mhlaba had been sentenced to 30 days imprisonment in 1952, and was given a nine month suspended sentence in 1955, in connection with his activities in the Defiance Campaign. In 1960, during the State of Emergency, Raymond Mhlaba was detained yet again and Mr Berrange surmised that he was obviously a devoted worker of the ANC. Raymond Mhlaba explained that he specialised in organisational work for the ANC. In light of this, Mr Berrange asked Raymond Mhlaba to tell the court about the M Plan which came into being in 1952/3 and his role in its implementation. Raymond Mhlaba stated:

Well, my lord, the M plan is intended to zone an area into what is called zones, and in a particular zone you have streets and in a particular street you have what we call cells… In the Communist Party we never used the term [cells]. In this country we refer to groups…

Yes, a cell composes of 10 houses, and then of course you have a leader put in charge of those particular houses. Then from a cell leader you have a street leader, a leader who is in charge of the whole street and the highest will be a zone leader in charge of a whole zone.

Raymond Mhlaba explained that the M Plan system was adopted in response to legislative restrictions implemented after the 1952 riots in Port Elizabeth and in anticipation of the time in which many felt the ANC would soon be declared an unlawful organisation. The M plan was put into operation in the Eastern Province and Raymond Mhlaba claimed that they had intended to extend it to other parts of the Union but “in certain parts of the country the African National Congress was still enjoying the right to have public meetings. And then the implementation varied from place to place. When the ANC was declared to be an illegal organisation Raymond Mhlaba did not leave its rank and continued to do organisational work for it – unlike when the Communist Party had been banned in 1950 and Raymond Mhlaba did not re-join its ranks when it reformed underground.

During October, 1961, Raymond Mhlaba received a letter from the National Secretary of the ANC informing him that he should report to the headquarters of the National Executive Committee in Johannesburg immediately. Raymond Mhlaba admitted that he had already been told by Govan Mbeki that a decision had been taken by the NEC, to the effect that he should be appointed as a full-time organiser for the ANC, and the letter was confirmation of this decision. On 26th October, 1961, Raymond Mhlaba left Port Elizabeth for Johannesburg without giving any notice to the attorneys’ firm he had spent eight years working for. When in Johannesburg, Raymond Mhlaba first met with Duma Nokwe, ANC Secretary General, who told him of his full-time appointment and explained the details of an assignment Raymond Mhlaba was instructed to carry out for the ANC.

This assignment took Raymond Mhlaba one year and two months to complete but he gave no additional information about what he had done or been tasked with doing other than this time frame. Mr Berrange did not push Raymond Mhlaba for information and chose instead to ask where Raymond Mhlaba went once he had completed “whatever task” he had been occupied with. Raymond Mhlaba said that at the end of December, 1962, he went to Walter Sisulu’s house and “gave the report about the fulfilment of my mission” after which Walter Sisulu suggested that the police might be looking for Raymond Mhlaba and that he “should go to a hiding place and he suggested that I should go to Liliesleaf Farm at Rivonia”. At this stage court adjourned for the lunch-break until 2:00pm.

On resuming, Mr Berrange launched right back into the matter of Walter Sisulu’s arranging for Raymond Mhlaba to stay at the Rivonia hideout, Liliesleaf Farm. Mr Berrange asked Raymond Mhlaba many questions about this first time he had ever been to Liliesleaf Farm. Raymond Mhlaba said that he spent about eight days at Rivonia in January, 1963, before he was sent back to the Eastern Cape to continue with organisational work for the ANC. In particular he was instructed to “go and check all the organisational work. Check about the implementation of the M Plan by the groups of the ANC” in areas across the Eastern Cape. Having completed this assignment at the end of February, 1963, Raymond Mhlaba returned to Rivonia where he stayed for about 12 days before leaving once again on a new assignment on 13th March, 1963.

Raymond Mhlaba returned to Rivonia for a third time at the end of June, 1963, and found Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu and Ahmed Kathrada there when he arrived. It was decided, in discussion with Walter Sisulu and Govan Mbeki, that Raymond Mhlaba “should lie low for about a week or so, thereafter [he’d] have to implement M Plan on the Reef”. In addition, Raymond Mhlaba was told during this conversation that he should make a full report of his mission to the National Secretariat of the ANC. Raymond Mhlaba stayed at Rivonia for four days before he and Govan Mbeki were driven to Travallyn by Denis Goldberg in his Combi. At Travallyn the three men were later joined by Walter Sisulu about two or three days later. It was at this stage that Raymond Mhlaba learnt that the meeting of the Secretariat in which he was due to report on his mission to implement M Plan on the Reef had been arranged to take place at 8:00pm on 11th July, 1963.

It was as a result of this arrangement that Raymond Mhlaba had gone to Rivonia on the afternoon of the 11th so that he and others could travel later that evening to the location in the townships where the ANC Secretariat meeting was supposed to take place. It was necessary for him to be there so early because Govan Mbeki and Walter Sisulu, with whom he had been driven by Denis Goldberg, had to attend a meeting at Liliesleaf Farm at about 2 or 3 o’clock that afternoon. Raymond Mhlaba explained that when they arrived at the farm, Walter Sisulu got out of the combi and accompanied a white man into the main house. Thereafter, he and Govan Mbeki exited the vehicle and went directly into the Thatched Cottage where they found Ahmed Kathrada. Once inside the Thatched Cottage, Raymond Mhlaba explained that Govan Mbeki “mentioned that he had to look for a certain document which is supposed to have been left in the story by Mr Arthur Goldreich”. Whilst Govan Mbeki was looking for this document Raymond Mhlaba said he was “putting on an overall at the time”.

When Govan Mbeki had finally located the document he came back and began to read it at the table. Raymond Mhlaba said that once his overall was on he moved to stand behind Govan Mbeki so as to read the document from over his shoulder”. When Raymond Mhlaba made this admission, Mr Berrange said “let’s go back a little bit” and asked him if he had ever been a member of MK or served on its High Command. Raymond Mhlaba responded no to both questions and said that during this time and prior thereto he had concerned himself solely with the work of the ANC. Mr Berrange then said, “I’m sure the question will be asked of you, so I’ll ask you it now. If you had been asked to join Umkhonto we Sizwe, would you have done so?” Raymond Mhlaba replied “Oh yes”. He then explained that he first heard about the formation of MK from Duma Nokwe when he came up to Johannesburg from Port Elizabeth in October, 1961. According to Raymond Mhlaba, Duma Nokwe told him that certain members of the ANC, such as Nelson Mandela, had set up MK but:

He said that the ANC will not allow that all the members should be engaged in the activities of the Umkhonto we Sizwe. That it had been decided that for the purposes of maintaining the African National Congress to run its affairs properly, that certain members will be instructed to confine their activities purely in the African National Congress.

Raymond Mhlaba was one of those members who was instructed to stick strictly to the political work of the ANC and he had no involvement with MK and its activities at all between 1961 and 1963. Returning to the matter of Raymond Mhlaba’s time spent at Rivonia just prior to the police raid, Mr Berrange asked if the subject of guerrilla warfare had ever come up in discussion. Raymond Mhlaba answered:

Well, the question of guerrilla warfare was brought up in a discussion which I had with Accused No.4… when he referred it to me that there was a certain document under discussion – and then he said amongst other things on that particular document was the question of the guerrilla warfare, and of course he gave me his opinion about it.

When Mr Berrange asked in Govan Mbeki had been in favour of the document he replied, “No, he was not in favour of it. He found certain difficulties confronting the implementation of the introduction of guerrilla warfare in the country”. Raymond Mhlaba admitted that he had had many such discussions with Govan Mbeki at both Rivonia and Travallyn because the introduction or feasibility of guerrilla warfare in the South African context was a current issue being discussed widely in the country. Raymond Mhlaba explained that he had not seen the document Govan Mbeki referred him to during these discussions because it had been in the possession of Arthur Goldreich prior to the afternoon of 11th July, 1963, when he saw it for the first time looking over Govan Mbeki’s shoulder in the Thatched Cottage.

Raymond Mhlaba clarified that he and Govan Mbeki were the only two people present in the room at the time they were reading the document. This was for about 10 or 15 minutes before they were joined by Walter Sisulu and Ahmed Kathrada. At that point he and Govan Mbeki stopped reading the document and engaged in a discussion about the meeting which was about to take place concerning the 90-day detention issue. According to Raymond Mhlaba Govan Mbeki did not return the document to the stove where it had been stored by Arthur Goldreich but left it on the table amongst a number of papers and books. Bob Hepple entered the Thatched Cottage about five minutes after Walter Sisulu and Ahmed Kathrada had come in, and was followed no more than two minutes later by Lionel Bernstein. The men were all in the room greeting each other when Bob Hepple said “there are the police” and closed the door. According to Raymond Mhlaba upon hearing this news “Everything was disorganised and Accused No.4 started climbing through the window followed by Accused No.2 and No.5”.

Raymond Mhlaba said that the reason he did not also try escape through the window was because “Well, the first thing that struck my mind was that it wouldn’t have any purpose”. W/O Kennedy then entered the room and Mr Berrange said “to put a long story short, you were all thereafter arrested”. Mr Berrange then asked Raymond Mhlaba to explain to the court why it was that he had put a pair of overalls on shortly before being arrested at Liliesleaf Farm. Raymond Mhlaba explained:

The question of putting on overalls was brought up when I came at the end of June, when I was told by Accused No.2 and 4 that we should put on overalls when we are on the farm to be able to disguise. To make that we should all look like labourers, so that whoever comes in would identify us as being labourers.

He told the court that there were three pairs of overalls at the farm for this purpose, two which were size small and one large one which was used by Raymond Mhlaba. During his four day stay prior to going to Travallyn Raymond Mhlaba did not wear these overalls. However, both he and Govan Mbeki had put them on when they arrived on the afternoon of the 11th so that they would not be conspicuous when travelling in the township later that evening. Mr Berrange used this discussion as a basis to justify Raymond Mhlaba’s claim that he did not know of the existence of the documents the police found in his overall pockets when he was searched and arrested. Raymond Mhlaba claimed that when the police found these papers on him he was not shown them and had no idea that they would be of any importance.

Mr Berrange, for the sake of the record, stated clearly that Raymond Mhlaba had no idea about the existence or contents of the piece of paper put in as evidence by the police which “looks like a pledge or an oath” found in his borrowed overalls. Returning to the moment just after Bob Hepple announced the arrival of the police, Mr Berrange asked Raymond Mhlaba if anything was burnt. Raymond Mhlaba admitted that Bob Hepple had burnt some papers at the stove whilst the others were jumping out the window. Mr Berrange then asked Raymond Mhlaba if he had ever returned to Port Elizabeth or the Eastern Cape after leaving on 26th October, 1961, until he came back in 1963. Raymond Mhlaba said that he only went back to the Easter Cape at the very end of December, 1962. As such, he claimed that the evidence of state witnesses which claimed that he had participated in acts of sabotage in the Eastern Cape during December, 1961, was “incorrect”, “a lie” and “cannot be the truth”.

Taking this point further, Mr Berrange reiterated that Raymond Mhlaba had never been approached to join MK but if had he been asked to do so, and to participate in its acts of sabotage, he would have done so. Raymond Mhlaba said that he had no idea if the members of MK were ever asked or made to take a pledge or an oath of some kind. It was only during this case that Raymond Mhlaba claimed to have gained the understanding that the document found in his overall pocket on the day of the Rivonia raid was alleged to be the pledge of MK. Thereafter, Mr Berrange indicated that he had no further questions and Dr Yutar stood to begin his cross-examine of Raymond Mhlaba.

Cross-examination by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar immediately launched into the question of what Bob Hepple had burnt in the Thatched Cottage just before the police came in. Raymond Mhlaba said that he did not know what the document was but had seen Bob Hepple move over to the coal stove to burn it. Dr Yutar suggested that this stove was “some distance” away from the table but Raymond Mhlaba said that they were relatively close to each other. Raymond Mhlaba said that he was not concentrating explicitly on what Bob Hepple was doing but he saw him using matches to start the process of burning a particular document. Dr Yutar put it to Raymond Mhlaba that the evidence by the police was that they found scraps of burnt paper in the wastepaper basket. Raymond Mhlaba replied “Well I don’t know about the evidence of the police. I’m just giving the statement insofar as what I saw at that time”.

Dr Yutar then shifted attention away from Rivonia and placed it on the locations in the Eastern Cape where certain acts of sabotage had been committed which state witnesses had linked to Raymond Mhlaba. These were the electric sub-station at Fransby in Port Elizabeth and the Bantu Labour Office in New Brighton which were both bombed in the early evening of 16th December, 1961. Raymond Mhlaba admitted that the Bantu Labour Office in New Brighton was considered “a symbol of oppression” not just by MK but by all “those people who have in fact been effected by it regard it as a symbol of oppression”. He went on to claim that he had had no specific knowledge about these sabotage attacks prior to the information he gathered during these court proceedings. In response to this Dr Yutar said, “So you, like Sisulu, you are learning some things for the first time in this court”, and Raymond Mhlaba confirmed that this was so.

Dr Yutar the asked Raymond Mhlaba a number of questions in regard to named co-conspirator Harold Strachan. Raymond Mhlaba told the court that he met Harold Strachan, sometime before his first trip to Johannesburg, in Govan Mbeki’s office at the New Age in Port Elizabeth. Raymond Mhlaba described Govan Mbeki as great friend also working for the Liberation Movement but did not give any details of meeting Harold Strachan other than the fact that he greeted him before rushing back to work. Dr Yutar then dealt with Silas Mtomgama but was only able to get Raymond Mhlaba to say that he was an ANC member before the organisation was banned. Dr Yutar then said “Surely you surely know. Mhlaba, you were organising the people into zones and into groups and into what not. You know which people were members in Port Elizabeth surely?” Raymond Mhlaba replied:

No, my Lord, it’s impossible to know. It is impossible in a Township like New Brighton to know each and every member of the organisation. Of course if Mtomgama was in a special position like a branch secretary or perhaps within a certain level in the M Plan like being in charge of a street, then I would know.

Dr Yutar asked Raymond Mhlaba to name the members of the ANC Provincial Executive in Port Elizabeth to which Raymond Mhlaba replied “I’m afraid I can’t assist you there”. When Dr Yutar asked why Raymond Mhlaba said “It is not my duty to tell you about that” and confirmed that he was taking up the same attitude of Walter Sisulu and Ahmed Kathrada “insofar as divulging the affairs of the organisation”. Dr Yutar then told Raymond Mhlaba that he had just heard that all of the Accused were going to take up this same attitude and asked who gave them instructions not to divulge names. Raymond Mhlaba answered, “Nobody gave us instructions. We are acting alike because we feel that it is not in the interest of the organisation, it is not in the interest of the oppressed people in this country”.

Dr Yutar continued to ask questions suggesting that Raymond Mhlaba was not taking seriously his oath taken in court to tell the truth causing Raymond Mhlaba to eventually state, “Well, the oath in this particular matter conflicts insofar as to give confidential matters away of my nation”. “Conflicts with what?” asked Dr Yutar. Raymond Mhlaba explained, “Conflicts with the fact that if I were to so in compliance of the oath as you put it, then I will be divulging the affairs of the organisation which will be detrimental to the organisation”. Dr Yutar surmised from this that the oath conflicted with Raymond Mhlaba’s loyalty to the ANC and the SACP. Raymond Mhlaba agreed that the conflict was with his loyalty to the ANC and the NLM but he denied that he had remained a member of the communist party after it reformed underground.

After establishing that Raymond Mhlaba was adopting the same position as his co-accused in regard to divulging certain information, Dr Yutar said:

All right. You are not going to assist the court. Tell me, and don’t tell me what Kathrada told me that you feel sorry for me, but can you suggest in what way I can test the truthfulness of your story that you have given under oath to tell the truth?

Raymond Mhlaba simply said that he believed that Dr Yutar still had “all the grounds of testing” the validity of his evidence despite the fact that he would not divulge the names of people in the structures of the ANC or the number of zones in Port Elizabeth. When Dr Yutar asked what role Joseph Jack played in the ANC all Raymond Mhlaba was willing to concede was that he was “a prominent leading member”.

There was then a long exchange between Judge De Wet and Raymond Mhlaba in which the Judge indicated his deep scepticism of the claim that MK recruiters had never corresponded with Raymond Mhlaba, “the person who was the head organiser” of the ANC structures in the Eastern Cape, in regard to which ANC members would be suitable candidates to be recruited for MK work. Raymond Mhlaba explained:

The thing is, my Lord, that the A.N.C. throughout the country were in charge of the programme and they in turn have got members from the original committee, and in turn there is the branch executive, and I take it that within the circles of the A.N.C. they would go to visit the respective organs.

Raymond Mhlaba completely rejected Judge De Wet’s suggestion that the Ad Hoc Committee had been the liaison between the MK and the ANC in Port Elizabeth – in the same way as state witnesses’ evidence had claimed was the case in Natal. He said instead that the function of the Ad Hoc Committee was to receive instructions from the ANC’s national organs for the whole Eastern Cape Province. Before allowing Dr Yutar the opportunity to take over questioning once again Judge De Wet asked Raymond Mhlaba if he really expected him to believe that the ANC Ad Hoc Committee and the MK Regional Command in the Eastern Cape were complete separate organisations with no knowledge of the work being done by the other.
Raymond Mhlaba did not respond to Judge De Wet’s final question and Dr Yutar then said, “In light of what his Lordship has asked you about the relationship between the two I’m going to put to you all the members if the Regional Command in Port Elizabeth”. Dr Yutar started with Titus Jobo and then dealt with Latan Mpongoshe, Joseph Tabata, Simon Twebe, and Dr Pather. In regard to each name Raymond Mhlaba refused to give their position within the ANC, MK or other organisations in the NLM. Dr Yutar then came to deal with state witnesses Bennet Mashiyana – whom Raymond Mhlaba claimed he had never met or seen before these court proceedings – and John Tshingane. Raymond Mhlaba described John Tshingane as a person he knew very well, as a taxi driver and member of the ANC, and with whom he had never had trouble or personal differences in the past. Dr Yutar then read extracts from John Tshingane’s evidence which claimed that Raymond Mhlaba had arranged with him for Nelson Mandela to be transported to Dr Pather’s house.

Raymond Mhlaba said “That is where he is telling a lie. I say he is telling a lie because I know of the arrival of Accused No.1 in Port Elizabeth. When Dr Yutar read another extract from this witness’s evidence placing Raymond Mhlaba in the company of Joseph Jack on 16th December, 1961, Raymond Mhlaba said, “That is his second lie”. Raymond Mhlaba went on to insist that the evidence of John Tshingane associating him with these two acts of sabotage was “all fabrication” and was “pure invention as far as his name was concerned”. He did, however, admit that if he had been asked to blow up the electric sub-station in furtherance of the struggle for freedom he would have done it and added “I see nothing wrong with it”. Dr Yutar asked Raymond Mhlaba to give the court one good reason why John Tshingane would have “invented this story” involving Raymond Mhlaba. In reply Raymond Mhlaba said, “Well, my opinion about it is that he was confronted with the police and he thought he should invent this”. He was careful to be clear that he was not claiming that the police had suggested anything to John Tshingane. Nor was he claiming that the evidence given by this witness was not true in regard to his personal actions and the actions of others on 16th December, 1961. He did claim, however, that the aspects of his evidence involving Raymond Mhlaba were untrue and invented by John Tshingane for reasons unbeknown to Raymond Mhlaba.

Raymond Mhlaba even suggested that it “really puzzled” him to try and think why it was that John Tshingane had singled him out in his fabricated story when, as Dr Yutar pointed out, he could have made others “his scapegoat”. Dr Yutar then turned attention to the two documents the police had found in Raymond Mhlaba’s possession when he was searched at Liliesleaf Farm. Raymond Mhlaba claimed that he never said “Mr Kennedy, let me see these documents” when he was searched by the warrant officer and added, “another thing which may interest the court is that these were never shown to me”. Furthermore, Raymond Mhlaba denied it when Dr Yutar suggested that he had also said to W/O Kennedy “I don't know what you found there, you might have found something serious, but I want to tell you these are not my documents” and “this is not my overall it belongs to someone else”.

Dr Yutar then read from the document which was found in Raymond Mhlaba’s borrowed overalls on the day of the Rivonia raid (Exhibit R.183) as follows:

Today in the presence of you all I swear to place my life at the service of my people. I will uphold the policy and follow the leadership of the National Liberation Movement. Today in the presence of you all I swear to place my life at the service of my people.

And Dr Yutar asked, “Is that not exactly what you meant when you became a member of the ANC and a responsible leader of the ANC?” Raymond Mhlaba’s initial reaction was to say “I hope you are not referring to me in connection with this document” but he eventually conceded that he had placed his life at the service of the people and committed himself to upholding the policy of the NLM and following its leadership. Dr Yutar then read a further extract from the pledge stating “I will guard the lives and rights of my people and respect their person and property” and suggested that Raymond Mhlaba was in fact doing that in the witness box right now in his refusal to divulge certain information.

Dr Yutar continued to read through the entire pledge, stopping after each line to hear Raymond Mhlaba’s confirmation that he had acted in accordance with what was written, and finally asked “What organisation of the National Liberation Movement had a peoples’ army?” Raymond Mhlaba said he did not know of such a thing and denied that the letter “U” on the document was a reference to Umkhonto. Dr Yutar then turned his attention to the second document which the police had found in Raymond Mhlaba’s possession on the day of the Rivonia raid. This document was a coded letter or note dated 8th June, 1963, addressed to “B” from Earnest – both of whom Raymond Mhlaba refused to identify – which he maintained he had never seen before it was presented in this court as having been one of the papers found in the overalls which were not his own.

Raymond Mhlaba refused to tell the court anything about the identity of the man who wore the same large-sized pair of overalls as he did when at Liliesleaf Farm, save for the fact that he was not present in court but was in the country. Dr Yutar then put it to Raymond Mhlaba that W/O Jordaan had told the court under oath that “he knew you during 1962 in Port Elizabeth… and he went further, he said during that time you had a cyst on your forehead”. Raymond Mhlaba said “No, no, there is a mistake there my lord” but Dr Yutar cut across him with the question, “did you ever have a cyst on your head?” to which Raymond Mhlaba said, “…He knows me”. Dr Yutar then said, “Yes. You had a cyst on your head and this cyst was removed when you went on one of your missions to Russia and China”. Raymond Mhlaba said that he was not prepared to give evidence regarding his purported secret mission and claimed that W/O Jordaan was “telling a lie, yes. If I’d heard him in this court saying that I would have instructed my advocate to cross-examine him on that very point, but I doubt very much that he did say that”.

Dr Yutar began to move on to a different matter concerning Bennet Mashiyana’s evidence when Judge De Wet interrupted him and brought attention back to what the state claimed to have been said in W/O Jordaan’s evidence. Mr Berrange managed to bring the matter to a close for the time being when he said:

My Lord, I don’t want to join the Issue with my learned friend, but I don’t remember very well, but I am told by other members of my team that Jordaan never said anything of the sort about seeing him in 1962. It is a matter that can be dealt with later on.

Returning swiftly to the evidence of Bennet Mashiyana, Dr Yutar asked “Is he telling the truth when he says Magabela introduced you, Mhlaba, to him?” Raymond Mhlaba, first established that the state was suggesting this introduction had taken place between 1961 and 1963, after which he said that Bennet Mashiyana must have been mistaken. Dr Yutar went further to ask why the state witness had then invented the fact that Raymond Mhlaba was introduced to him as a member of the National High Command, to which Raymond Mhlaba answered, “Well, I think he meant the Port Elizabeth High Command. The witnesses all talk about the Eastern Province National High Command”. Before Dr Yutar could respond Mr Berrange said to Judge De Wet, “My Lord, may I say that was the National High Command of the A.N.C. if I remember rightly, that the witness had spoken about. They used the phrase and an explanation was given to your Lordship about the way in which the A.N.C. command obtained that name”. Judge De Wet replied, “Well, I don’t know if the other witnesses knew the difference between the Umkhonto High Command and the A.N.C. as I understood that evidence. Well, that’s a matter to be checked up”. Following which Raymond Mhlaba interjected:

No, the confusion here, my Lord, if I may help, is that – I think it was Accused No. 1 – that there was a confusion in using the term ‘High Command’. It originates from our discussions in gaol during the detention in 1960. And then from there it was used in introducing the new structure of the A.N.C. operating underground. And then we use the word High Command referring to the branch activity.

In response to this explanation offered by Raymond Mhlaba Judge De Wet said “Yes, but my impressions may be wrong there, but a number of the witnesses regarded the National High Command at Port Elizabeth as being the organising head of the Umkonto, as well as possibly of the A.N.C. That is my impression. It can be checked”. Dr Yutar said that this was his impression too and Judge De Wet then adjourned proceedings until the following morning.

Further cross-examination reserved.

Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.53/8B/65e) (Vol.53/9A/66e) (Vol.53/9A/67e) (Vol.53/9A/68e) (Vol.53/9A/69e) (Vol.53/9A/70e) (Vol.53/9B/71e) (Vol.53/9B/72e) (Vol.53/9B/73e) (Vol.53/9B/74e).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 30th April, 1964, (Ms.385/36/1).
File containing details about Accused Nos. 1-7: TS, Ahmed Kathrada (MS.385/31/3/6).
File containing details about Accused Nos. 1-7: TS, Accused No.7 [Raymond Mhlaba] (MS.385/31/3/8).
A M Kathrada [Acc.No.5] Examination-in-chief only – incomplete. Marked AA4. (MS.385/8).
Raymond Mhlaba [Acc.No.7] – incomplete. Marked AA4. (MS.385/9).
WITS Historical Papers:
Ahmed Kathrada’s Evidence on resuming (copy) (AD1844.A24.2).
Raymond Mhlaba’s evidence (AD1844.A25.1).

Key Words
Ahmed Kathrada, Raymond Mhlaba, MK, ANC Policy, Sabotage, Guerrilla Warfare, Eastern Cape, M Plan, ANC Structures, Rivonia Raid.