Item Belt 75e - DB - Raymond Mhlaba XXD

Description

The first and last sound recordings from this day are not available. There are court transcripts available in the form of AD1844.A25.1 and AD1844.A26.1 (WITS Historical Papers).

This day’s proceedings began with Mr Berrange raising the matter of the state’s suggestion that W/O Jordaan had seen Raymond Mhlaba in Port Elizabeth during 1962. Judge De Wet told Mr Berrange that he had consulted his notes and could confirm that no such accusation had been made by W/O Jordaan in regard to Accused No.7. Thereafter Dr Yutar began his cross-examination of Raymond Mhlaba. One of the main issues dealt with by Dr Yutar was Raymond Mhlaba’s special secret missions. Raymond Mhlaba claimed that he had conducted these missions on behalf of the ANC but the state alleged that they were actually for MK purposes. It was in regard to this matter that Dr Yutar offered Raymond Mhlaba complete amnesty for any evidence he gave which may incriminate him in any way for having left the country without a permit. Raymond Mhlaba, declined the offer and refused to answer Dr Yutar’s questions about his special missions on the grounds that it may incriminate him.

Following Raymond Mhlaba’s re-examination, Dr Yutar requested that Judge De Wet make an order before calling for the lunch-time adjournment to the effect that the state had to be informed as to which witness the defence intended to call next before any such witness was called. Judge De Wet ignored Dr Yutar’s request and ordered that court would resume at 2:00 pm after which he left the courtroom. Interestingly, there is a portion of sound recording which captures an argument between the two opposing councils which took place once Judge De Wet had left the courtroom. Unfortunately the content of this argument are hard to make-out but the issue clearly related to Dr Yutar’s frustration at the defence counsel’s reluctance to give him the order of its witnesses in advance. Upon resuming, the defence counsel indicated that it would be calling Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein, to take the witness stand next.

Before Mr Berrange began his examination-in-chief of Lionel Bernstein he told Judge De Wet that the defence had arranged for two witnesses to be flown in from Cape Town and Durban to give evidence on Monday. These two witnesses had professional commitments which meant that they could only appear to give evidence on Monday and no other date. The issue was, as Mr Berrange explained, that the evidence-in-chief of Lionel Bernstein would undoubtedly be lengthy and would definitely require more than this afternoon to complete. In light of this, and the fact that Dr Yutar raised no objections, Judge De Wet gave his permission for the evidence of Lionel Bernstein to be interrupted on Monday in order for these two witnesses to be called and resumed thereafter.

The primary issues dealt with by Mr Berrange during this first session of Lionel Bernstein’s examination-in-chief had to do with: his political beliefs as an outspoken Marxist; his understanding of the various bodies and coalitions in South Africa engaged in liberation politics; his affiliations with the Congress Alliance; his perspective on sabotage and the turn to violent methods of struggle; and finally his reasons for being at Liliesleaf Farm on the day of the police raid. Mr Berrange was unable to complete his examination-in-chief of Lionel Bernstein on this day and his evidence-in-chief was carried over until Monday.

Raymond Mhlaba’s Evidence.

Cross-examination by Dr Yutar.
The first issue dealt with by Dr Yutar was the suggestion, put to Raymond Mhlaba by Judge De Wet on the previous day, that one of the functions of the Ad Hoc Committee in Port Elizabeth was to act as liaison between the ANC and MK. Raymond Mhlaba maintained his position that the Ad Hoc Committees had come into being in replacement of the Provincial Executives when the ANC went underground but they had never had anything to do with MK. Raymond Mhlaba went even further to say that there was no contact “at all” between the ANC and the MK. Dr Yutar then asked why, under the new M Plan, members of the Ad Hoc Committee were now appointed and not elected as was previously done with the Provincial Executives. Raymond Mhlaba said that this was done because “the democratic principles [of the organisation] could not get so far” when operations had to be conducted underground.

Raymond Mhlaba refused the suggestion that the Ad Hoc Committee was “in effect an overall committee… Guiding the destinies of both the ANC and the MK” after which Dr Yutar shifted his attention to the matter of Raymond Mhlaba’s “special mission” he completed on behalf of the ANC but refused to detail in his evidence-in-chief to the court. Dr Yutar began by asking Raymond Mhlaba if any of his other co-accused, aside from Nelson Mandela, had ever undertaken “any special missions on behalf of any of the organisations”. Raymond Mhlaba said that as far as he knew they had not participated in any such special missions. Dr Yutar then suggested that Raymond Mhlaba must be a very important man within the National Liberation Movement to have been assigned two such special tasks. Raymond Mhlaba replied that he did not think he was given these assignments because he was important but because he was suitably skilled and experienced to do the work required.

Dr Yutar commented that these assignments Raymond Mhlaba had been selected for were “So important and so secret that when your learned Counsel led you on those assignments, you didn’t give his lordship the slightest hint as to where those assignments took you or why”. Raymond Mhlaba confirmed that he would have divulged such details during his evidence-in-chief, after which, Dr Yutar added, “Well, I want to put it to you that in December, 1961 you were either in Port Elizabeth or in Leipzig”. Before Raymond Mhlaba could offer any kind of response Mr Berrange interjected and said:

My Lord, I don’t want to interject unnecessarily, but I do suggest, my Lord, that the witness should be warned by your Lordship in regard to the latter portion of the question, as to whether he was in Leipzig, that it is a question which might tend to incriminate him and that under those circumstances he need not answer it.

Judge De Wet asked in what way Raymond Mhlaba risked incriminating himself and Mr Berrange explained it was “in respect of leaving the country. In respect of an offence which is not charged in this particular case”. Judge De Wet addressed Raymond Mhlaba and told him that he need not necessarily answer Dr Yutar’s question:

Which may be an admission that you left the country without getting the necessary permits. It doesn’t follow that if you left for Leipzig that you didn’t have a permit. But if you feel that the question incriminates you, you can refuse to answer it on that ground or you can refuse to answer it on any other ground.

Raymond Mhlaba indicated that he understood the position clearly following which Dr Yutar then said:

Well, I want to tell you Mhlaba, on behalf of the Attorney-General I here and now in the presence of his Lordship grant you full indemnity from any prosecution for having left the country at any stage without a permit. So you need not worry about incriminating yourself.

Yet again Mr Berrange interjected before Raymond Mhlaba could respond and suggested that Dr Yutar knew perfectly well that an admission in this regard involved a number of offences aside from leaving the country without a permit. In light of this suggestion Dr Yutar said “Well, I’ll extend that immunity. I’m prepared to grant you a full indemnity arising out of your leaving the country whatever the reason was”. Raymond Mhlaba’s answer was short and concise: “No, my Lord, I’m not taking your assurance”. When Dr Yutar tried to explain in other words the full extent to which he was offering amnesty to Raymond Mhlaba, the latter simply replied “No, I am not taking it” after which he refused to answer the question as to his whereabouts in December, 1961, on the grounds explained by Judge De Wet.

As a result of Raymond Mhlaba’s refusal to answer the question, on the grounds that it may incriminate him in regard to leaving the country without a permit, Dr Yutar chose to deal with what the terms of Raymond Mhlaba’s assignment were as they were explained to him in Johannesburg. Raymond Mhlaba refused to answer the question. Dr Yutar then asked Raymond Mhlaba to explain to the court why it was not possible that this assignment he was given in December, 1961, was done on behalf of MK. Raymond Mhlaba insisted that he only ever did work for the ANC but Dr Yutar quickly insisted that his assignment could have been for the MK which was under “the political wing of the ANC”. Raymond Mhlaba said he did not know that the MK can be understood as under the political wing of the ANC. Dr Yutar then asked where and when Raymond Mhlaba had met Arthur Goldreich for the first time. Raymond Mhlaba said that they two met for the first time at Liliesleaf Farm in February, 1963, with one other person whom he refused to identify.

Dr Yutar suggested that the person Raymond Mhlaba was refusing to identify at this stage was Wilton Mkwai, also known as Bree Bree, an ANC member from Port Elizabeth. After Raymond Mhlaba refused to comment on this and the suggestion that Wilton Mkwai was the person described as “P.E. Man” in the evidence of Mr X. Dr Yutar then moved on to deal with the special assignment which had been given to Arthur Goldreich to go to Czechoslovakia and negotiate for the supply of explosives on behalf of MK. When Dr Yutar asked if his mission had been only to negotiate for explosives Raymond Mhlaba admitted that a certain document handed in by the state had suggested that his mission also included negotiations for arms and ammunition.

Dr Yutar commented on the fact that none of the Accused thus far was willing to talk about the arms aspect of this mission, after which he asked “Did you not go overseas on behalf of the MK with a similar mission?” Raymond Mhlaba said “No my lord”. Dr Yutar then asked, “Then what did you go overseas for?” and Raymond Mhlaba replied, “I am not prepared to answer that question”. Dr Yutar eventually clarified that in light of Raymond Mhlaba’s denial that he was in Port Elizabeth during December, 1961, the state’s suggestion was that he went overseas in order to negotiate and obtain assistance on behalf of the MK”. Raymond Mhlaba did not deny this suggestion but refused to make any comment which caused Dr Yutar to say, “That is a very easy way of getting out of it. Just keep on saying no, no, no, then I’ll finish you very soon.”

Raymond Mhlaba admitted that when he left Port Elizabeth for his special assignment he had a cyst on his head which was subsequently removed before his return at the end of December, 1962, but refused to say where it had been removed on the grounds that it might incriminate him. With very limited input from Raymond Mhlaba by way of response, Dr Yutar led him through the details of his return in December, 1962; the report he made to Walter Sisulu about the completion of his mission on behalf of the ANC; as well as the eight days he spent at Rivonia thereafter. Raymond Mhlaba said that he was with the P.E. Man during this time he spent at Rivonia but still would not say who this P.E. Man was – save for the fact that it was not Wilton Mkwai. Dr Yutar then asked Raymond Mhlaba when he first met Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada. Raymond Mhlaba said that the two of them had met first on the night of 30th June, 1963, at Rivonia.

Dr Yutar told Raymond Mhlaba that he would come back to deal with Ahmed Kathrada later and turned his attention back to the P.E. Man. Raymond Mhlaba said that this man worked in a factory in Port Elizabeth and was at Rivonia for the purpose of hiding from the police. Furthermore, he said that at Rivonia this man had spent his time reading books and newspapers. Under Dr Yutar’s questioning, Raymond Mhlaba also conceded that this man had done some writing at Rivonia and that the books he was reading were of a political nature – some dealing with the issue of guerrilla warfare. Dr Yutar suggested that this man was reading such literature in order to apply what he learnt in South Africa. Raymond Mhlaba said that this was not necessarily true. Dr Yutar then said:

You know he was on the Provincial Executive with you in Port Elizabeth for a long time. And you mean to tell his Lordship that you don’t know what work he was doing there [at Rivonia] and why he was doing what he was?

Echoing the line given countless times by his two co-accused who went before him in the box Raymond Mhlaba said, “Even if I knew, my Lord, I wouldn’t tell”. Dr Yutar then asked what books Raymond Mhlaba had busied himself reading whilst at Rivonia for this eight day period. Raymond Mhlaba said that he had read newspapers, history textbooks dealing with South Africa and nothing else. He claimed that he had read books dealing with the history of the Cuban, Chinese and Algerian revolutions before in the townships of Port Elizabeth but not at Rivonia during this period. When Dr Yutar asked serval times for what “ultimate purpose” Raymond Mhlaba had read these books Raymond Mhlaba said it was for his own enlightenment as a politician. Dr Yutar retorted:

I know you’re a politician in the A.N.C. And the A.N.C. we are told – at least you want us to believe – was a non-violent organisation in 1961/62 and ’63. Why concern yourself about books dealing with revolutions and guerrilla warfare?

Raymond Mhlaba explained that “the very good reason” for his reading such literature was because “the internal political situation compelled me to do it”. After a series of questions in which Raymond Mhlaba gave short one-sentence answers Dr Yutar finally got him to concede that he had read this and other political literature in preparation for some possible future time in which the internal political situation would warrant the use of revolutionary methods of struggle.

In discussing the one document found in his overalls on the day of the Rivonia raid, Raymond Mhlaba claimed that it was only during a consultation session for this case with the defence counsel that he learnt from Govan Mbeki that the document was an oath of the MK. He maintained that the ANC had no oath. Drawing on the evidence of Bennet Mashiyana, Dr Yutar then put the suggestion to Raymond Mhlaba that he knew that the National High Command was at Rivonia. Dr Yutar used the fact that Raymond Mhlaba had known Govan Mbeki to have operated from Rivonia as a basis to validate his suggestion before diverting attention back to the issue of oaths. Dr Yutar referred to Bennet Mashiyana’s evidence once again in order to make the argument that the ANC Volunteers had in fact taken a kind of oath and that their other name, Amadela Kufa (interpreted as “Despisers of Death”), was an indication that they were the soldiers who were being sent overseas for military training.

Raymond Mhlaba denied this suggestion and claimed that the ANC Volunteers were not soldiers because their tasks were activities such as handing out leaflets and never involved the use of arms or violence. He conceded that the National Chief Volunteer was Nelson Mandela during the Defiance Campaign and that Wilton Mkwayi had been the Chief Volunteer for the New Brighton Branch of the ANC. Dr Yutar asked if Nelson Mandela had gone for training in Algeria in order to perfect his pamphlet distributing skills as National Chief Volunteer. Raymond Mhlaba said that Nelson Mandela had already given the reasons for his trip through Africa and added that he had not gone “in his capacity as a national volunteer in the first place”. Dr Yutar then read from correspondence which referred to Amadela Kufa being sent to Bechuanaland and then flown to Dar es Salaam and made the same suggestion that this was so they could be trained in pamphlet distribution. Raymond Mhlaba ignored Dr Yutar’s comment and maintained that he knew nothing about this letter.
Dr Yutar then returned to the matter of the oath taken by the Volunteers and Raymond Mhlaba said that he had corrected his evidence in this regard when Dr Yutar first mentioned the issue. He denied the implication made in Bennet Mashiyana’s evidence that the oath would compel those who took it to engage in acts of murder on behalf of the ANC. Dr Yutar drew on the evidence of Reginald Mdubi to justify his suggestion that the ANC Volunteers were recruited to commit acts of sabotage on behalf of MK and to “deal with” any people named as traitors to the ANC cause by killing them. Raymond Mhlaba said in regard to this evidence by state witnesses:

It is a tissue of lies insofar to suggest the volunteers were set up for the purpose of killing people, and that volunteers were automatically members of MK. That is not correct.

Raymond Mhlaba went on to state that acts of sabotage were committed by MK units and not ANC Volunteers contrary to the “distortion of the truth” given by state witnesses Bennet Mashiyana and Reginald Mdubi to the court. Shortly after this court was adjourned for the tea-break.

On resuming Dr Yutar asked Raymond Mhlaba if he was prepared to concede that when he went on his secret mission it was “as a volunteer”. Raymond Mhlaba refused to answer the question which forced Dr Yutar to return to deal with Raymond Mhlaba’s time spent at Rivonia after he had completed his special mission. Dr Yutar commented that it was “Very, very negligent on your part” when he recalled the evidence that Raymond Mhlaba had not been wearing overalls during this particular stay at Liliesleaf Farm. Thereafter he asked Raymond Mhlaba exactly what he done whilst at Liliesleaf Farm at this time. Raymond Mhlaba said that he had occupied his time with reading and writing letters (of a non-political nature) to his friends. He conceded that the man with whom he was staying in the Thatched Cottage during this time was the same man who was there during January, 1963.

Raymond Mhlaba claimed that the only knowledge he had of some of the 54 acts of sabotage which the state alleged to have been committed in the months of January and February, 1963, was gathered from what he read in newspapers. Dr Yutar then turned attention to Raymond Mhlaba’s last trip to Rivonia at the end of June, 1963, after he had completed his second special mission on behalf of the ANC which lasted three and a half months. Raymond Mhlaba said that he had been assigned this special mission by the National Secretariat of the ANC which led Dr Yutar to argue:

And then can we take it, assuming that we can persuade his Lordship that in 1963 the policy of the A.N.C. was one of violence, could we assume that you went over – wherever you went on a mission connected with a violent policy if the A.N.C.?

Raymond Mhlaba told Dr Yutar “Your assumption in the first place is wrong, my Lord” and therefore the suggestion on which it is based “falls away”. Dr Yutar got Raymond Mhlaba to concede that if his assumption was in fact correct then the suggestion would stand before going on to deal with the number of mattresses in the Thatched Cottage in Rivonia. Dr Yutar attempted to make the case that the fact that there were four mattresses found by police in the Thatched Cottage was an indication that four people were staying there prior to the raid. In response to this Raymond Mhlaba said, “Please my Lord, let me say this. When I came in that night there were four mattresses, and it would appear that two were being used by Accused No.5”. Raymond Mhlaba was then asked to describe what Walter Sisulu had done with his time at Rivonia:

No.2, what I saw, almost every day after breakfast, he would take some papers and a file and to go out. During the daytime. And go to the van which was behind the building.

This van was not driven by Walter Sisulu but used as an office space. In regard to Govan Mbeki, Raymond Mhlaba said that he also used to go out in the mornings with a file and some papers to either the main house or the adjourning room from where he did work for the ANC. Raymond Mhlaba added that he now understood that Govan Mbeki was also doing work for MK at that time – but only heard about this for the first time in consultations for this case. Shortly thereafter Dr Yutar said:

Perhaps you are right, you were all doing ANC work, because our submission to his Lordship will be on the documents that MK and ANC were one and the same organisation. You may be right. You know Sisulu, No. 2 was one of your confidants?

Raymond Mhlaba confirmed that Walter Sisulu was a “confidant” of his and Dr Yutar then asked why it was that Walter Sisulu had not told him about the MK. Raymond Mhlaba retorted that Walter Sisulu had from time to time told him about the consultations he had had with the National High Command in regard to political matters. Dr Yutar then asked, “Well, what political matters did MK concern itself with apart from blowing up court rooms and bridges and railway lines, signal boxes, what other political work did the MK do?” To this Raymond Mhlaba replied, “Well, personally I take it that even sabotage activities are the continuation of politics”. Dr Yutar took this to mean that Walter Sisulu had been consulted by the NHC in regard to the sabotage activities of MK Units. Raymond Mhlaba answered, “I don’t know actually in detail, but he told me about it”.

Attention was then brought back to the conversation between Raymond Mhlaba and Duma Nokwe in which the latter had told Raymond Mhlaba about the formation of MK. Raymond Mhlaba insisted that in Duma Nokwe’s explanation of the controlled acts of sabotage to be carried out by MK units on the symbols and institutions of apartheid he never mentioned power pylons, signal boxes or railway lines. Dr Yutar first asked where the headquarters of MK were – which Raymond Mhlaba claimed he had no idea – and then asked exactly which people were “to do the dirty work of blowing up all these symbols of apartheid? Raymond Mhlaba, refusing to give any names, said that the members of the MK units were comprised of people from the NLM. Raymond Mhlaba, on the request of Dr Yutar, said that Walter Sisulu was senior to himself in the NLM and that Ahmed Kathrada would probably been seen as his junior. With this Dr Yutar once again expressed his disbelief in the claim that Walter Sisulu had only learnt about the MK for the first time in December, 1961. Raymond Mhlaba promptly corrected Dr Yutar and informed the prosecutor that he had mistakenly mixed up the evidence of Ahmed Kathrada with that of Walter Sisulu.

Dr Yutar then shifted his attention to Raymond Mhlaba’s third and final stay at Rivonia in June, 1963. Raymond Mhlaba explained that he left Liliesleaf Farm after Walter Sisulu had told him “that a new farm [Travallyn] had been bought by MK and it is going to be used for hiding and for trainees that were in transit… And that I should go and stay there for the time being”. Dr Yutar then suggested that the reason Denis Goldberg had been used to purchase Travallyn was because he was connected with the MK. Raymond Mhlaba said he did not know about that, after which, he went on to explain that as far as he could recall Govan Mbeki had also gone with him to Travallyn because “he had a hiding place somewhere, but I haven’t got the details. I was told there was something wrong there for the time being, it is going to be regularised”. Dr Yutar then asked why Raymond Mhlaba had left his overalls at Rivonia when he left for Travallyn. Raymond Mhlaba answered, “Well, because I was told that I will be going away very soon. Going to do MK work… M Plan”.

In regard to the second part of Raymond Mhlaba’s answer Dr Yutar said “Right. We’ll keep that answer”, and then turned to deal with Raymond Mhlaba’s return to Rivonia on 11th July, 1963. Dr Yutar asked what had been said in regard to guerrilla warfare in discussions Raymond Mhlaba had already admitted he had had with Walter Sisulu and Govan Mbeki at Rivonia. Raymond Mhlaba said that they were discussing “whether it is possible or not to embark on guerrilla warfare” because “it was a burning issue” being discussed and in some instances demanded amongst the rank and file of the NLM. This demand, explained Raymond Mhlaba, was for the activities of MK to be adjusted from sabotage to guerrilla warfare. He insisted that the opinion of all three of them in discussion was that “it was not suitable”. Some of the main reasons for this opinion mentioned by Raymond Mhlaba were: that there were no friendly borders, difficulties in procuring arms, and an unsuitable terrain for guerrilla warfare activities in most of South Africa.

Dr Yutar then asked Raymond Mhlaba if he was aware of Arthur Goldreich’s special mission overseas to discuss the question of arms and explosives at the time. Raymond Mhlaba said that he had been told of Arthur Goldreich’s assignment by Walter Sisulu – who was himself informed by the NHC – but maintained that he knew nothing about discussions of arms and ammunition prior to this case. Dr Yutar asked Raymond Mhlaba if he was aware that a code of conduct and discipline for the MK had been created. Once again Raymond Mhlaba said that he knew nothing of this prior to this case. Dr Yutar referred to Exhibit No.1 which was a code, setting out orders for guerrilla warfare operations, which had been written by Harold Wolpe – whom Raymond Mhlaba claimed he had never met. Dr Yutar asked “Why should Wolpe go to the extent of drawing up a code if guerrilla warfare had not already been decided upon?” Raymond Mhlaba said that it was impossible for him to comment on this document which he knew nothing about. As Dr Yutar started to read from the document again Judge De Wet interjected, “There is no point in asking the witness to comment on this if he knows nothing about it”.

Dr Yutar then turned attention to Operation Mayibuye. Raymond Mhlaba claimed that he only learnt that the document Govan Mbeki had found in the stove (left there by Arthur Goldreich) was Operation Mayibuye when he was reading the first two or three pages of the document over Govan Mbeki’s shoulder. Raymond Mhlaba said that he was not taken by surprise at all from what he read in the document and added that he agreed with the many aspects of the political argument made in the section he read. Dr Yutar made Raymond Mhlaba consult the original document in order to tell the court exactly how much he had read of it at Rivonia. Raymond Mhlaba indicated that he had read pages one and two and when Dr Yutar read the final paragraph of page two Raymond Mhlaba contradicted his earlier answer and said that he did find this surprising. The paragraph read:

The following plan envisages a process which will place in the field at a date fixed now, simultaneously, in preselected area, armed and trained guerrilla bands who will find ready to join them local guerrilla bands with arms and equipment at their disposal.

Dr Yutar asked if Raymond Mhlaba, in his state of surprise, had asked Govan Mbeki what this paragraph was all about and Raymond Mhlaba said “We were still reading – I intended commenting when the police entered the building”. Dr Yutar continued to read certain excerpts from Operation Mayibuye which Raymond Mhlaba admitted came to him as a surprise. Dr Yutar then challenged Raymond Mhlaba’s claim that all he had done at Rivonia was read and write by drawing on the evidence of Solomon Sepedi in which the witness claimed to have seen Raymond Mhlaba operating the roneo machine. Both Raymond Mhlaba and Judge De Wet told Dr Yutar that they had no notes or recollections of that evidence having been given by the second witness called by the state. Raymond Mhlaba confirmed that if the transcript of evidence said that he operated the roneo machine that would be untrue. With that Dr Yutar concluded his cross-examination of Raymond Mhlaba.

Re-examination by Mr Berrange.
Mr Berrange began his re-examination by getting Raymond Mhlaba to state clearly for the court that he knew nothing about “what organisational developments were taking place in the ANC and the Umkhonto” during the period from October, 1961, until the beginning of 1963. Thereafter Mr Berrange dealt with the oath which was taken by the ANC Volunteers during the Defiance Campaign in 1952 and got Raymond Mhlaba to state that this oath was “completely different” from the one found in his overalls on the day of the Rivonia raid. Raymond Mhlaba went on to explained that the Volunteers continued to exist, wearing a special uniform and recruiting new members, after the Defiance Campaign and only operated in secrecy after the ANC was banned.

Mr Berrange then asked Raymond Mhlaba to explain the distinction between a Volunteer and an ordinary member of the ANC in terms of what work was done by the latter group. Raymond Mhlaba said “Well, a member of the ANC really, he joins, he pays a subscription, attends a general meeting, attends branch executive meetings”. Mr Berrange followed up by asking if ordinary members were obliged to attend these meetings or not. Raymond Mhlaba answered, “Well, I mean as a member interested in the affairs of the organisation, he has to attend meetings to find out what is going on”. Raymond Mhlaba would not use the word “activist” to describe the ordinary ANC member; he would only use it to describe the ANC Volunteers because they were responsible for distributing leaflets, and painting slogans, as well as organising all the arrangements for any ANC meetings or members’ funerals. The Volunteers had to be available for these duties at all times and in this way they were “completely different from the [ordinary] members”.

Raymond Mhlaba said that it was the Volunteers who had collected all of the monies and made all of the other arrangements “that enabled something like 1,900 people, delegates, to attend the Congress of the People” in Kliptown. Furthermore, it was the Volunteers who went around to people across the Union collecting and collating their freedom demands which numbered in the thousands. Thereafter, Mr Berrange moved on to deal with the matter of Operation Mayibuye and the evidence Raymond Mhlaba had given thereof during cross-examination. In dealing with this topic Mr Berrange said “Now I am not quite sure whether you and Dr Yutar were ad idem or understanding one another when he used the words ‘did it come as a surprise’.” Raymond Mhlaba stated that when he was asked the question by Dr Yutar he had taken it “to mean the suggestions embodied in the document” and that what he had meant was that he was not surprised by the fact that this document existed.

Thereafter Mr Berrange dealt with the statement John Tshingane had made “in one of his unguarded moments in giving evidence” to the effect that he drove Raymond Mhlaba to the train station in Port Elizabeth on 26th October, 1961, which supported the defence’s claim that he was not in Port Elizabeth when acts of sabotage took place. Mr Berrange asked some clarifying questions in regard to the documents found in the overalls Raymond Mhlaba was wearing on the day of the raid before dealing with the manner in which Raymond Mhlaba would regard himself if he gave the court “the whole truth” in relation to the names of certain individuals. Raymond Mhlaba explained that the reason he would not do so was because:

Well, my fear is the consequences which will result to those individuals I may mention here. They will immediately be arrested, taken into detention, perhaps after some time they may be charged… Then I would be regarded by the public that I am an informer.

Raymond Mhlaba said that under no circumstances would he become an informer after which Mr Berrange told him that he had received directions to ask one last question. Mr Berrange’s final question was, “Was the composition or the personnel of MK units known to all and sundry, or was it the sort of thing that was kept secret?” Raymond Mhlaba answered, “It is secret, my Lord. As a matter of fact, even the ANC, if you belonged to a cell, you only know the members of that particular cell, not the next one”. With that Mr Berrange concluded his re-examination and Raymond Mhlaba was allowed to leave the witness box and court was adjourned for lunch.

Lionel Bernstein’s Evidence

Examination-in-chief by Mr Berrange.
Mr Berrange began his examination-in-chief by confirming that Lionel Bernstein was 44 years old and his formal occupation was as a self-employed architect. Mr Berrange then put it to Lionel Bernstein that had had been engaged in political activity for most of his life and asked if he had ever been abroad. Lionel Bernstein agreed with Mr Berrange’s suggestion and answered that he had only ever been out of the country once in service of the South African Army. The first main issue dealt with by Mr Berrange in his examination-in-chief of Lionel Bernstein was his political affiliations with various organisations. Lionel Bernstein joined the Labour Party League of Youth in approximately 1938 and the Communist Party in 1939. When the Communist Party was dissolved in 1950 Lionel Bernstein continued with his political activities through the ex-service organisation the Springbok legion in which he was elected to serve on the National Executive Committee from about 1949 to 1953 when it “more or less collapsed”.

Lionel Bernstein warned his counsel that the dates he was giving were very uncertain approximations that “I am not terribly clear on these points”. Lionel Bernstein then went on to admit that he had been a founding member of the South African Congress of Democrats and played an important organisational role as a representative of the COD during the Congress of the People in Kliptown, 1955. Mr Berrange asked Lionel Bernstein to give the court a clear picture of what the COD consisted of and what its aims and objectives were. Lionel Bernstein said:

My lord, this was an organisation formed by European South Africans who subscribed to the aim of working for equal rights and opportunities for all South Africans, irrespective of race or colour, and for the total elimination of the colour bar in South African society, and membership was open to anybody who subscribed to that point of view.

Mr Berrange then asked Lionel Bernstein the same question in regard to the Congress of the People in response to which Lionel Bernstein explained:

My lord, the proposal was made, as I say, at a Joint Executive Meeting of the Congresses, that a broad assembly representative, as far as possible of all the people of South Africa should be convened; an assembly really of delegates picked by people either on a residential basis, sent by factories, organisations and clubs and so on, and at that assembly a Charter of the views, demands9 of the South African people should be adopted. And the way that Charter was prepared for was that for a period of about 18 months to 2 years during which the Congress of the People was being campaigned for and prepared, groups of people all over the country were asked to formulate for themselves whatever demands they would like to see written into such a Charter. All those demands were then collected on the eve of the Congress of the People, summarised into systematic form, and when the Assembly actually took place these summarised demands were put before the Congress of the People as a draft of the Freedom Charter which was then adopted, I am not sure if it was in toto or with amendments, I am not sure.

Lionel Bernstein explained that extensive efforts had been made to get all types of South Africans to participant in supplying their freedom demands for the Congress of the People – even known National Party supporters were approached to give their input. Mr Berrange confirmed with Lionel Bernstein that it was alleged during the Treason Trial that the Freedom Charter was a communist document but that the suggestion had not been sustained by the court. Mr Berrange also confirmed that a very large number of Lionel Bernstein’s writing had also appeared as exhibits during the Treason Trial.

Lionel Bernstein was first banned for a period of two years in 1954 and subsequently banned a further two times for five year periods in 1956 and 1961. Mr Bernstein asked Lionel Bernstein how he had continued with his political activities after his first banning. Lionel Bernstein explained that his main political work had always been writing and it was through the medium of written word that he was able to continue with his political activities. Mr Berrange then asked Lionel Bernstein to discuss the publications he had written for. Lionel Bernstein explained that he had written and worked for the magazine called “Public Works of South Africa” (the only apolitical journal he contributed to) until the time in 1956:

…When I was arrested on a charge of high treason at the end of 1956 and I think the owners felt that somebody charged with high treason was not quite the right person to be editing a journal which circulated chiefly in Government and provincial departments, and they dispenses with my services.

Thereafter, Lionel Bernstein explained that he had worked primarily on political writings for publications such as Fighting talk (of which he was a member of the editorial committee from about 1948 right up until 1963), New Age, the Guardian, Spark, and Counter Attack (the organ of the COD), amongst others. He also stated that he had also owned a non-profit book store called “The Book Store” in the late-1950s which distributed and sold liberal and left wing literature which was unavailable at most other normal bookshops. Mr Berrange asked if Lionel Bernstein had ever written any pamphlets on behalf of any organisations before. Lionel Bernstein said that he had written many pamphlets for the Springbok Legion, the COD and added that he was “associated with Africa Publications” where he did a fair amount of editorial and organisational work.

Mr Berrange then asked Lionel Bernstein if he had often written about topical or current issues such as the Indian border dispute. Lionel Bernstein said that he had constantly been writing on topical issues and commented that his work on the Indian border dispute had even been handed in as an exhibit in this case. Mr Berrange said, “Yes well that is why I mentioned it” and went on to ask Lionel Bernstein if he had had anything to do with “Ruth First’s book on South Africa”. Lionel Bernstein said that he had not yet seen the published book himself but he had been told that the extensive editorial work he had put into Ruth First’s initial draft is acknowledge by her in the Foreword of the text. Mr Berrange then asked Lionel Bernstein to explain, in regard to all these writings he was engaged in, what the political nature of his works had been. Lionel Bernstein explained:
It was of a left wing nature. I think in general it expressed one of two points of view, either a socialist point of view, where that was appropriate, or otherwise a point of view of the Congress Alliance in this country.

When Mr Berrange asked if Lionel Bernstein considered himself a Marxist, the reply he received was, “Very definitely”. Having established this Mr Berrange the asked Lionel Bernstein to comment on the exhibits, which had been issued by Africa Publications, on the Congo, Angola, Algeria, and Cuba and the state’s suggestion that these were guerrilla warfare training manuals. Lionel Bernstein’s comment was:

Well, the suggestion won’t bear any examination at all, if you read the content of the pamphlets. Perhaps I should explain how they came to be published. During the Treason Trial a few of us got together to produce a book about the Treason Trial, for the purpose of raising funds to assist with the defence. And for that purpose we formed this body, it is not a company, I suppose a partnership or something, called Africa Publications. Then when the crisis developed in the Congo in 1960 there was a tremendous need in this country, particularly amongst supporters of the Congress movement which they expressed for some material which would enable them to understand what was happening in the Congo at the time.

Lionel Bernstein continued with his explanation, after Mr Berrange suggested that Lionel Bernstein and his colleagues had been “unhappy about newspaper reports”, and said:

Well the newspaper reporting was very inadequate, and very difficult to follow, sir, and it did not give any of the historical background about the Congo and how this crisis had developed, so we decided we should publish a booklet about the Congo, and in fact I think the entire content of that booklet is a single article which was borrowed from a British magazine. None of it was written in this country, it might have been slightly edited. That booklet sold extremely well, and it sold out, and the result was we were pressed to produce other booklets dealing with topics of this sort which were of general interest. I can’t remember which was the second, I think it was the booklet dealing with Algeria which at that time was of course also very much in the news in Africa. The war was at its height, and that booklet dealt with the history of the Algerian National Movement, and dealt with the economy and politics of Algeria. When that sold on we went on and produced a booklet about Anglo which was coming into the news because of the uprising which was taking place there, and finally we produced this booklet about Cuba, which was described here in Court yesterday. I know something . . . quite a lot about the Cuban one, because I actually did the summary myself which appears in the first part of that pamphlet. It is a summary of a book by two American professors who had been on an extensive visit to Cuba… and the second part is a digest of a speech made by Castro to the United Nations.

Mr Berrange then shifted attention to the “Joint Executives, the Congress Alliance, the National Liberation Movement and the Consultative Committee” and asked Lionel Bernstein to make clear to the court what each one of these bodies meant, what they stood for, and how they were composed. Lionel Bernstein began with the NLM which he immediately said was not an organisation or a body as such. Lionel Bernstein suggested that the best way to understand the NLM was as “a broad current of opinion which is agreed on the general need for the abolition of the colour bar”. Judge De Wet then interjected and asked if the NLM was not merely a reference to a particular ideology. In response to this Lionel Bernstein said:

Virtually yes my lord, in the same way I suppose one could speak about the Afrikaner Nationalist Movement embracing dozens of different organisations, different characters and aims, but all forming part of the Afrikaner Nationalist Movement. So one speaks of the National Liberation Movement as embracing all those currents of opinion which stand for the abolition of the colour bar.

Lionel Bernstein went on to explain that the NLM was also a highly contested term with multiple meanings for different people in different spaces. He noted for example that some people consider the Unity Movement which existed in the Cape as part of the NLM whilst many others would not. Therefore it was “not a fixed concept with definite boundaries”. Mr Berrange then asked Lionel Bernstein to explain to the court what, if any, fundamental difference there was between the ANC and the PAC if both were aiming for the abolition of the colour bar. Lionel Bernstein explained that:

The fundamental difference between them is that the Pan Africanist Congress, in my view, does not subscribe to the idea that minority groups in South Africa, that is to say, whites, Coloureds and Indians, are necessarily as a matter of right, entitled to equal rights in the new South Africa when they have established it, whereas the African National Congress is absolutely unequivocal on this question, and it makes its stand very clear at all times. I think that is the main difference between them. There are minor differences as for instance their attitude towards co-operation with the Communist Party, where they have slight differences, and so on. I think the main policy difference is on this question.

Mr Berrange asked Lionel Bernstein to elaborate on the relationships between the Communist Party and these two organisations some more for the court. Lionel Bernstein said that in the post-1950 period the ANC had always been willing to work with the Communist Party in matters of common interest but the PAC, on the other hand, “is extremely hostile to Communism and has not at any time as far as I am aware ever co-operated in anyway whatsoever”. In regard to the Congress Alliance Lionel Bernstein explained that it too was not a body but “merely a working together of the four or five congresses”. The Joint Executive, explained Lionel Bernstein, was when the National Executives of all the bodies in the Congress Alliance very rarely came together “when a big political decision is about to be taken” and consisted of up to 100 people representing the full National Executives of all the five bodies.

Lastly, Lionel Bernstein explained that the Consultative Committee was a small standing committee of the Congress Alliance set up for the purpose of “day to day consultation and co-ordination of joint executives” and was made up by two or three representatives of each of the National Executives. Returning to the matter of Lionel Bernstein’s political writings he explained that whilst he subscribed to communist and Marxist views when writing for organisations that did not themselves hold these views he would “try to the best of my ability to obliterate my Marxist viewpoint from them”. Mr Berrange commented on the fact that Lionel Bernstein had been very open with his political views in this court and Lionel Bernstein added that “I don’t think anybody who knows me is in any doubt about my views”.

When Mr Berrange asked Lionel Bernstein what his views of the political situation in South Africa were Lionel Bernstein replied that “the main political problem in this country is the abolition of the colonial-type conditions which entails the abolition of the colour bar in general, and in particular it entails the lifting of discriminatory legislation against the African people who constitute the majority of the population”. Mr Berrange then queried why it was that Lionel Bernstein persistently used the phrase “colonial-type” in regard to South Africa. Lionel Bernstein explained:

Because this is not a classic colony in my view, but nevertheless, if one looks at the conditions under which a large number of the African population in particular live, one can see very close parallels between those conditions and the conditions which apply to the indigenous people in classical colonial countries, so I say of that type.

Lionel Bernstein admitted that he had been actively engaged in doing work, mostly of a propagandist nature, in the aims of abolishing the colour bar and “when it has been appropriate and possible to do so I have been advocating socialism as a long term suggestion for the future development of this country”. In so doing Lionel Bernstein said he had been in close contact with the ANC and the Indian Congress as well as, to a lesser extent, the Coloured People’s Congress and the Congress of Trade Unions. He stated that in all his years of politics he had never doubted the various policies of the Congress movement and its “simple aim of abolishing the colour bar and instituting a regime of equal rights and opportunities”.

In regard to the issue of violence Lionel Bernstein claimed that the ANC “have never preached a policy of violence… right up to this very moment”. Lionel Bernstein continued to say that the only change in ANC policy which took place in 1960/61 was that “they recognised that they can no longer justifiably continue to tell everybody that the use of violence would be completely unjustified and wrong. Lionel Bernstein added that although he, like many communists, was not a pacifist at all; he did feel that the Congress Alliance’s pre-1960 stance of nonviolence was the correct and best policy at the time. In regard to the leaders of the Congress Alliance he said that:

Well I know practically all of them, I thinly with few exceptions, I would say that they are people who practically without exception have grown up in the tradition of positive non-violence, and those of them who have moved away from that position, have moved away very slowly and reluctantly indeed. Far more slowly and reluctantly, in fact, than a large number of their followers did.

Lionel Bernstein continued to explain:

My lord, mixing with large numbers of supporters and members of the Congress movement, one could not fail from 1960 onwards to be aware of the fact that many of these people were beginning to question very, very seriously indeed whether the policy of non-violence followed by the Congresses was correct, and many of them were beginning openly to advocate violent methods of struggle and resort to violent activity of one kind or another, and my experience of this situation was that the leaders of the Congress movement responded to this sort of pressure very slowly end reluctantly indeed. They were far from inciting it, they were to some extent trailing along behind it, if I may put it that way.

Lionel Bernstein placed the blame for the growing situation of violence in South Africa “four-square with the Government” whom, he argued, had squandered every opportunity given to them to negotiate a settlement in a civilised manner around a table. Mr Berrange then referred to the document entitled “Face the Future” which Lionel Bernstein had written some time ago and which made a very similar assessment of the political situation in South Africa as that Lionel Bernstein had just given to the court. Mr Berrange asked Lionel Bernstein what he had been advocating in this pamphlet he wrote in 1960 (immediately after the State of Emergency) which made a comparison between the Algerian and South African contexts and the potential for civil war in the latter. Lionel Bernstein explained that in this pamphlet he was urging the South African government to enter into negotiations “on the basis that the demands of the non-white people would have to be met sooner or later” or else the government would be risk facing “a long drawn period of civil war such as Algeria has faced, and then have to be met at the end of it in a situation of great civil bitterness” – which was the very thing the Congress Alliance was trying to avoid.

Very briefly Mr Berrange dealt with the suggestion by state witnesses that Lionel Bernstein had been involved in the erection of a radio aerial at Rivonia, to which the witness replied “There is not a word of truth in it”, after which he moved on to deal with the reasons why Lionel Bernstein was at Rivonia on 11th July, 1963. Lionel Bernstein explained that Bob Hepple had told him that people at Rivonia were greatly concerned with the 90-day detention situation and the lack of sufficient outcry and protest against it by the public. It was in Bob Hepple’s office during this discussion that the two of them set the 11th of July at 3:00pm as the date and time on which they would meet with the others at Rivonia to discuss what arrangements could be made to improve the situation. Lionel Bernstein explained that Bob Hepple had in mind that he (Lionel Bernstein) would be useful in writing propaganda and articles for the press, both domestically and abroad, which would raise attention in regard to the 90-day detention law.

Lionel Bernstein agreed to go out to Rivonia and added that there was also talk of creating a fund raising campaign to assist the dependants of the 90-day detainees, the majority of whom were Africans. Mr Berrange then asked Lionel Bernstein if he had ever known Liliesleaf Farm to have had anything to do with acts of sabotage. Lionel Bernstein insisted that he had never hear such a thing until this case. He conceded that questions of violence and sabotage must have come up during his occasional visits to Liliesleaf Farm but could not recall any specific discussions. Mr Berrange then confirmed that Lionel Bernstein was required to report in person at Marshal Square every day between 12:00 and 2:00pm and that he had done so on the day of the Rivonia raid. Mr Berrange led Lionel Bernstein through the business meeting he had had thereafter and his arrival at Liliesleaf Farm where he found Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, Raymond Mhlaba and Bob Hepple in the Thatched Cottage. Lionel Bernstein explained what happened at this stage in the following way:

My lord, we spent a couple of minutes just chatting, greeting each other, some of these people I had not seen for some time. We were making light social chatter when Hepple suddenly announced that the police had arrived. I think he was in a position where he saw the truck drive in. And then there was a state of confusion which has been described here by several of the accused.

Mr Berrange then dealt with the evidence that Lionel Bernstein’s car engine had been cold when W/O Dirker inspected it. In this regard Lionel Bernstein stated that W/O Dirker had not searched the car in his presence at all and added “I must say I rather doubt whether he examined it at all during the time that I was at the farm”. Mr Berrange asked Lionel Bernstein to explain why he said that. Lionel Bernstein said:

My lord, my car was fitted from the day I bought it with a burglar alarm device which was so rigged up that if you opened the bonnet, the hooter started blowing, and there was no way of stopping the hooter other than closing the bonnet, or switching off the device, a tiny little switch which was buried inside the glove box. I did not hear the hooter go off during the time I was at the farm, which was until after dark I think or very nearly dark.

Immediately after Lionel Bernstein had completed this response Judge De Wet called for court to be adjourned until Monday morning.

Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.53/9B/75e) (Vol.53/10A/76e) (Vol.53/10A/77e) (Vol.53/10A/78e) (Vol.53/10A/79e) (Vol.53/10A/80e) (Vol.53/10B/81e) (Vol.53/10B/82e) (Vol.53/10B/83e).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 1st May, 1964, (Ms.385/36/1).
File containing details about Accused Nos. 1-7: TS, Accused No.7 [Raymond Mhlaba] (MS.385/31/3/8).
Raymond Mhlaba [Acc.No.7] – incomplete. Marked AA4. (MS.385/9).
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:
Raymond Mhlaba’s evidence (AD1844.A25.1).
Lionel Bernstein’s Evidence (3 Folders). (AD1844.A26.1).
Bernstein, Accused No.6 (Personal Position). (AD1844.A30b11).

Key Words
Raymond Mhlaba, Lionel Bernstein, M Plan, ANC Special Missions, Nelson Mandela, Indemnity Offer, Sabotage, Guerrilla Warfare, Wilton Mkwai, Arthur Goldreich, ANC Volunteers, MK Units, Rivonia, MK Oath, Communism, Treason Trial, Freedom Charter, Africa Publications, Congress Alliance, NLM, PAC, Colonialism.