Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, Raymond Mhlaba, Andrew Mlangeni, Elias Motsoaledi, Ahmed Kathrada, Denis Goldberg, Lionel Bernstein, Bob Hepple, Arthur Goldreich, Harold Wolpe and James Kantor.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Partial
Revised
TPD CC 253/63
NARSSA
Criminal court case No. 253/1963 called The State versus N Mandela and Others, heard in the Supreme Court of South Africa (Transvaal Provincial Division)
Paper Records:
File cover with handwritten notes, including the sentences that were passed: The clerk of the court recorded the sentences that were passed together with the names of the accused on the cover of a file in blue ink.
Extracts of evidence by state witnesses (3 vols.): These volumes include records by the attorney for the accused, Mr. B Fischer, applying for the postponement of the proceedings and the reply by Dr Yutar, the State’s main prosecutor. Further records include the verbatim transcriptions of evidence given by state witnesses.
Evidence for defence (1 vol.): Include verbatim transcriptions of evidence given by Ahmed Kathrada, Raymond Mhlabo, Lionel Bernstein and Govan Mbeki..
Rivonia Exhibits (1 vol.): The exhibits include documents seized by the police at Liliesleaf and deals with topics such as the Transkei; Operation Mayibuye; The new draft programme of the South African Communist Party (SACP); names and addresses of ANC and SACP members; a copy of Sibanye, a newsletter; documents discussing problems in the democratic movement, the Nationalists invasion scare, the general predictions for 1963; handwritten notes on freedom movements elsewhere in Africa; an article by E Rosenthal on General De Wet; a syllabus on the fundamental principles of Marxism; a pamphlet named A Call to the Youth; a manual on rock blasting; the rules of the SACP; sketch of Tunisia; Handwritten notes on the Kenya Youth Wing Organisations; SACP newsletter on the China / India border dispute; Statement by the SACP on conditions in South Africa; Document on the differences in the Communist movement; invoices from Ace Auto electricians; Press statement by Nelson Mandela on 26 June 1961.
State's Concluding Address (4 vol's): These volumes are divided into three parts. The first part deals with a factual analysis of documentary exhibits handed in, and of oral testimony given, by state witnesses. Part two deals with a factual analysis of the documentary exhibits handed in, and of the oral testimony given, by state witnesses (continued). The third part deals with the Rivonia exhibits.
Two volumes consisting of Judge's remarks in passing sentence; The Attorney General for the Transvaal's statement explaining which of the accused was found guilty of what offences; a part of the judgement and verbatim transcriptions of the court proceedings
Judgement (1 vol):
Dictabelts
On average the recordings are usually around half an hour long. There are many which are shorter than this and only a few which exceed 30:00 minutes in duration. Each recording has been assigned a unique reference label which indicates the volume, envelope page, and original dictabelt number relevant to it. These references are important as they correspond with the file-names assigned to each recording as found in the inventories of the eight volumes of dictabelt records.
(Chronological)
Paper records, vinyl dictabelts and digitised files kept at optimum archival conditions. Software required: AtoM used as archival management tool. NAAIRS database on the NARSSA website used for access to the archival records.
Archival
The former Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division.
None expected
This group was transferred to the National Archives Repository in 1996 by the former Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. The dictabelts in this fonds have been digitized by the Institut national de l'audiovisuel (INA) in France between 2014 - 2017 in an agreement with the Department of Arts and Culture.
The original Rivonia Trial records (paper records and dictablets) are available at the National Archives Repository.
Digital preservation and restoration copies are available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives, mp3 files and PDF records can be accessed from the database on the NARSSA website.
Open for access
Written permission needed from the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Published
Wednesday, 30 October 1963
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/5B/Belt 11) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 12) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 13) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 14) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 15) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 16) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 17) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 18) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 19) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 20).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Judgement quashed
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Wednesday, 30 October 1963
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/5B/Belt 11) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 12) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 13) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 14) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 15) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 16) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 17) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 18) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 19) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 20).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Judgement quashed
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Wednesday, 30 October 1963
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/5B/Belt 11) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 12) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 13) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 14) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 15) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 16) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 17) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 18) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 19) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 20).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Judgement quashed
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Wednesday, 30 October 1963
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/5B/Belt 11) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 12) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 13) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 14) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 15) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 16) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 17) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 18) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 19) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 20).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Judgement indictment quashed
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Wednesday, 30 October 1963
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/5B/Belt 11) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 12) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 13) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 14) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 15) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 16) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 17) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 18) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 19) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 20).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Judgement indictment quashed
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Wednesday, 30 October 1963
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/5B/Belt 11) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 12) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 13) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 14) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 15) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 16) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 17) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 18) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 19) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 20).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Judgement Indictment quashed
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Wednesday, 30 October 1963
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/5B/Belt 11) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 12) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 13) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 14) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 15) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 16) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 17) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 18) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 19) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 20).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Judgement application bail Kantor (continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Wednesday, 30 October 1963
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/5B/Belt 11) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 12) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 13) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 14) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 15) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 16) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 17) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 18) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 19) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 20).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Judgement application bail Kantor (Continued)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Wednesday, 30 October 1963
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/5B/Belt 11) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 12) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 13) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 14) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 15) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 16) (Vol.48/7A/Belt 17) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 18) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 19) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 20).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Judgement application bail James Kantor (Continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Thursday, 31 October 1963
This day’s proceedings were very short –with only two dictabelt recordings having been made – and included the final stages of Dr Lowen’s bail application on behalf of James Kantor. Judge De Wet informed the courtroom that he would be making his judgement in this regard at 10:00am the following morning.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1A/Belt 21) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 22).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
James Kantor bail
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Thursday, 31 October 1963
This day’s proceedings were very short –with only two dictabelt recordings having been made – and included the final stages of Dr Lowen’s bail application on behalf of James Kantor. Judge De Wet informed the courtroom that he would be making his judgement in this regard at 10:00am the following morning.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1A/Belt 21) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 22).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
James Kantor bail
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Thursday, 31 October 1963
This day’s proceedings were very short –with only two dictabelt recordings having been made – and included the final stages of Dr Lowen’s bail application on behalf of James Kantor. Judge De Wet informed the courtroom that he would be making his judgement in this regard at 10:00am the following morning.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1A/Belt 21) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 22).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Application bail James Kantor
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Thursday, 31 October 1963
This day’s proceedings were very short –with only two dictabelt recordings having been made – and included the final stages of Dr Lowen’s bail application on behalf of James Kantor. Judge De Wet informed the courtroom that he would be making his judgement in this regard at 10:00am the following morning.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1A/Belt 21) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 22).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Application bail James Kantor
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Thursday, 31 October 1963
This day’s proceedings were very short –with only two dictabelt recordings having been made – and included the final stages of Dr Lowen’s bail application on behalf of James Kantor. Judge De Wet informed the courtroom that he would be making his judgement in this regard at 10:00am the following morning.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1A/Belt 21) (Vol.48/1A/Belt 22).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Application bail James Kantor
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Friday, 1 November 1963
Judge De Wet refuses bail to James Kantor and Lionel Bernstein and court is adjourned until 12th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1A/Belt 23).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bail Lionel Bernstein and James Kantor refused
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Friday, 1 November 1963
Judge De Wet refuses bail to James Kantor and Lionel Bernstein and court is adjourned until 12th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1A/Belt 23).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bail Lionel Bernstein and James Kantor refused
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Friday, 1 November 1963
Judge De Wet refuses bail to James Kantor and Lionel Bernstein and court is adjourned until 12th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1A/Belt 23).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bail Lionel Bernstein and James Kantor refused
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday, 29 October 1963
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1B/Belt 2) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 3) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 4) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 5) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 6) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 7) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 8) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 9) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 10).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing of indictment (Continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday, 29 October 1963
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1B/Belt 2) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 3) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 4) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 5) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 6) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 7) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 8) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 9) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 10).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing of indictment (Continued)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday, 29 October 1963
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1B/Belt 2) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 3) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 4) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 5) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 6) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 7) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 8) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 9) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 10).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing of indictment (Continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 29 October, 1963
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1B/Belt 2) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 3) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 4) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 5) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 6) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 7) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 8) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 9) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 10).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing of Indictment (Continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 29 October, 1963
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1B/Belt 2) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 3) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 4) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 5) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 6) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 7) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 8) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 9) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 10).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing of Indictment (Continued)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 29 October, 1963
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1B/Belt 2) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 3) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 4) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 5) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 6) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 7) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 8) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 9) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 10).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing of Indictment (Continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 29 October, 1963
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1B/Belt 2) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 3) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 4) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 5) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 6) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 7) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 8) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 9) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 10).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing of indictment (Continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 29 October, 1963
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1B/Belt 2) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 3) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 4) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 5) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 6) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 7) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 8) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 9) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 10).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing of indictment (Continued)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 29 October, 1963
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1B/Belt 2) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 3) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 4) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 5) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 6) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 7) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 8) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 9) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 10).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing of indictment (Continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 29 October, 1963
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1B/Belt 2) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 3) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 4) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 5) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 6) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 7) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 8) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 9) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 10).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing of indictment (Continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 29 October, 1963
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1B/Belt 2) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 3) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 4) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 5) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 6) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 7) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 8) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 9) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 10).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing of indictment (Continued)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 29 October, 1963
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1B/Belt 2) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 3) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 4) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 5) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 6) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 7) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 8) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 9) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 10).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing of indictment (Continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 29 October, 1963
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1B/Belt 2) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 3) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 4) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 5) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 6) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 7) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 8) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 9) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 10).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing of indictment (Continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 29 October, 1963
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1B/Belt 2) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 3) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 4) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 5) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 6) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 7) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 8) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 9) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 10).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing of indictment (Continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 29 October, 1963
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1B/Belt 2) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 3) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 4) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 5) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 6) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 7) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 8) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 9) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 10).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing of indictment (Continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 29 October, 1963
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1B/Belt 2) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 3) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 4) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 5) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 6) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 7) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 8) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 9) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 10).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing of indictment (Continued)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 29 October, 1963
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1B/Belt 2) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 3) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 4) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 5) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 6) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 7) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 8) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 9) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 10).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing of indictment (Continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 29 October, 1963
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1B/Belt 2) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 3) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 4) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 5) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 6) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 7) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 8) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 9) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 10).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Application for bail James Kantor (Continued) Judgement reserved
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 29 October, 1963
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1B/Belt 2) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 3) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 4) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 5) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 6) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 7) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 8) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 9) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 10).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Application for bail James Kantor (Continued) Judgement reserved
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 29 October, 1963
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1B/Belt 2) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 3) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 4) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 5) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 6) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 7) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 8) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 9) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 10).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Application for bail James Kantor (Continued) Judgement reserved
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 29 October, 1963
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1B/Belt 2) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 3) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 4) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 5) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 6) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 7) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 8) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 9) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 10).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Application for bail James Kantor (Continued) Judgement reserved
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 29 October, 1963
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/1B/Belt 2) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 3) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 4) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 5) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 6) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 7) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 8) (Vol.48/1B/Belt 9) (Vol.48/5B/Belt 10).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Application for bail James Kantor (Continued) Judgement reserved
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 12 November, 1963
A new indictment splitting the sabotage charges into two parts is presented by Dr Yutar to Mr Justice Galgut and the case is remanded to 25 November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/2A/Band 1[23]) (Vol.48/2A/Band 2 [Info sheet only no dictabelt]).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Postponement
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 12 November, 1963
A new indictment splitting the sabotage charges into two parts is presented by Dr Yutar to Mr Justice Galgut and the case is remanded to 25 November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/2A/Band 1[23]) (Vol.48/2A/Band 2 [Info sheet only no dictabelt]).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Postponement
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 12 November, 1963
A new indictment splitting the sabotage charges into two parts is presented by Dr Yutar to Mr Justice Galgut and the case is remanded to 25 November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/2A/Band 1[23]) (Vol.48/2A/Band 2 [Info sheet only no dictabelt]).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Postponement
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer First case quoted Rex Vs Adams
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer quoted Rex Vs Adams
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer quoted Rex Vs Adams
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer, Harold Hanson (for James Kantor)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer, Harold Hanson (for James Kantor)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer, Harold Hanson (for James Kantor)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fisher
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Harold Hanson (For James Kantor)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Harold Hanson (For James Kantor)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Harold Hanson (For James Kantor)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Harold Hanson
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Harold Hanson
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Harold Hanson
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Harold Hanson
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Harold Hanson
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Harold Hanson
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Harold Hanson assumed
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Harold Hanson assumed
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Monday, 25 November, 1963
Proceedings on this day were taken up by Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson arguments to quash the second indictment in which the alleged acts of sabotage had been reduced from 199 to 193.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/3A/1a) (Vol.48/3A/2a) (Vol.48/3A/3a (Assumed)) (Vol.48/3A/4a) (Vol.48/3A/5a) (Vol.48/3B/6a) (Vol.48/3B/7a) (Vol.48/3B/8a) (Vol.48/3A/9a) (Vol.48/3A/10a [Assumed]).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Harold Hanson assumed
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 26 November, 1963
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/4A/11a) (Vol.48/4A/12a) (Vol.48/4A/13a) (Vol.48/4A/14a) (Vol.48/4A/15a) (Vol.48/4B/16a) (Vol.48/4B/17a) (Vol.48/4B/18a) (Vol.48/4B/19a).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing of indictment Dr Percy Yutar
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 26 November, 1963
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/4A/11a) (Vol.48/4A/12a) (Vol.48/4A/13a) (Vol.48/4A/14a) (Vol.48/4A/15a) (Vol.48/4B/16a) (Vol.48/4B/17a) (Vol.48/4B/18a) (Vol.48/4B/19a).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing of indictment Dr Percy Yutar
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 26 November, 1963
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/4A/11a) (Vol.48/4A/12a) (Vol.48/4A/13a) (Vol.48/4A/14a) (Vol.48/4A/15a) (Vol.48/4B/16a) (Vol.48/4B/17a) (Vol.48/4B/18a) (Vol.48/4B/19a).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing of indictment Dr Percy Yutar
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 26 November, 1963
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/4A/11a) (Vol.48/4A/12a) (Vol.48/4A/13a) (Vol.48/4A/14a) (Vol.48/4A/15a) (Vol.48/4B/16a) (Vol.48/4B/17a) (Vol.48/4B/18a) (Vol.48/4B/19a).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing (Bram Fischer)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 26 November, 1963
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/4A/11a) (Vol.48/4A/12a) (Vol.48/4A/13a) (Vol.48/4A/14a) (Vol.48/4A/15a) (Vol.48/4B/16a) (Vol.48/4B/17a) (Vol.48/4B/18a) (Vol.48/4B/19a).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing (Bram Fischer)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 26 November, 1963
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/4A/11a) (Vol.48/4A/12a) (Vol.48/4A/13a) (Vol.48/4A/14a) (Vol.48/4A/15a) (Vol.48/4B/16a) (Vol.48/4B/17a) (Vol.48/4B/18a) (Vol.48/4B/19a).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing (Bram Fischer)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 26 November, 1963
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/4A/11a) (Vol.48/4A/12a) (Vol.48/4A/13a) (Vol.48/4A/14a) (Vol.48/4A/15a) (Vol.48/4B/16a) (Vol.48/4B/17a) (Vol.48/4B/18a) (Vol.48/4B/19a).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 26 November, 1963
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/4A/11a) (Vol.48/4A/12a) (Vol.48/4A/13a) (Vol.48/4A/14a) (Vol.48/4A/15a) (Vol.48/4B/16a) (Vol.48/4B/17a) (Vol.48/4B/18a) (Vol.48/4B/19a).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 26 November, 1963
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/4A/11a) (Vol.48/4A/12a) (Vol.48/4A/13a) (Vol.48/4A/14a) (Vol.48/4A/15a) (Vol.48/4B/16a) (Vol.48/4B/17a) (Vol.48/4B/18a) (Vol.48/4B/19a).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 26 November, 1963
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/4A/11a) (Vol.48/4A/12a) (Vol.48/4A/13a) (Vol.48/4A/14a) (Vol.48/4A/15a) (Vol.48/4B/16a) (Vol.48/4B/17a) (Vol.48/4B/18a) (Vol.48/4B/19a).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer and Harold Hanson
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 26 November, 1963
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/4A/11a) (Vol.48/4A/12a) (Vol.48/4A/13a) (Vol.48/4A/14a) (Vol.48/4A/15a) (Vol.48/4B/16a) (Vol.48/4B/17a) (Vol.48/4B/18a) (Vol.48/4B/19a).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer and Harold Hanson
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 26 November, 1963
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/4A/11a) (Vol.48/4A/12a) (Vol.48/4A/13a) (Vol.48/4A/14a) (Vol.48/4A/15a) (Vol.48/4B/16a) (Vol.48/4B/17a) (Vol.48/4B/18a) (Vol.48/4B/19a).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bram Fischer and Harold Hanson
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 26 November, 1963
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/4A/11a) (Vol.48/4A/12a) (Vol.48/4A/13a) (Vol.48/4A/14a) (Vol.48/4A/15a) (Vol.48/4B/16a) (Vol.48/4B/17a) (Vol.48/4B/18a) (Vol.48/4B/19a).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Harold Hanson
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 26 November, 1963
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/4A/11a) (Vol.48/4A/12a) (Vol.48/4A/13a) (Vol.48/4A/14a) (Vol.48/4A/15a) (Vol.48/4B/16a) (Vol.48/4B/17a) (Vol.48/4B/18a) (Vol.48/4B/19a).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Harold Hanson
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 26 November, 1963
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/4A/11a) (Vol.48/4A/12a) (Vol.48/4A/13a) (Vol.48/4A/14a) (Vol.48/4A/15a) (Vol.48/4B/16a) (Vol.48/4B/17a) (Vol.48/4B/18a) (Vol.48/4B/19a).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Harold Hanson
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 26 November, 1963
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/4A/11a) (Vol.48/4A/12a) (Vol.48/4A/13a) (Vol.48/4A/14a) (Vol.48/4A/15a) (Vol.48/4B/16a) (Vol.48/4B/17a) (Vol.48/4B/18a) (Vol.48/4B/19a).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Application to quash dismissed
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 26 November, 1963
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/4A/11a) (Vol.48/4A/12a) (Vol.48/4A/13a) (Vol.48/4A/14a) (Vol.48/4A/15a) (Vol.48/4B/16a) (Vol.48/4B/17a) (Vol.48/4B/18a) (Vol.48/4B/19a).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Application to quash dismissed
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 26 November, 1963
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/4A/11a) (Vol.48/4A/12a) (Vol.48/4A/13a) (Vol.48/4A/14a) (Vol.48/4A/15a) (Vol.48/4B/16a) (Vol.48/4B/17a) (Vol.48/4B/18a) (Vol.48/4B/19a).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Application to quash dismissed
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 26 November, 1963
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/4A/11a) (Vol.48/4A/12a) (Vol.48/4A/13a) (Vol.48/4A/14a) (Vol.48/4A/15a) (Vol.48/4B/16a) (Vol.48/4B/17a) (Vol.48/4B/18a) (Vol.48/4B/19a).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing dismissed
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 26 November, 1963
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/4A/11a) (Vol.48/4A/12a) (Vol.48/4A/13a) (Vol.48/4A/14a) (Vol.48/4A/15a) (Vol.48/4B/16a) (Vol.48/4B/17a) (Vol.48/4B/18a) (Vol.48/4B/19a).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing dismissed
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Tuesday 26 November, 1963
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/4A/11a) (Vol.48/4A/12a) (Vol.48/4A/13a) (Vol.48/4A/14a) (Vol.48/4A/15a) (Vol.48/4B/16a) (Vol.48/4B/17a) (Vol.48/4B/18a) (Vol.48/4B/19a).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing dismissed
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Application for postponement of 2 months
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Application for postponement of 2 months
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Application for postponement of 2 months
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Trial to commence 27 November 1963
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Trial to commence 27 November 1963
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Mr Fischer and Mr Hanson continued their applications to quash the second indictment on this morning, after which, Dr Yutar presented the state’s reply. Judge De Wet eventually dismissed the application to quash the new indictment and ordered that the trial would commence on 27th November, 1963.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Trial to commence 27 November 1963
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
On this day Mr Coaker, of James Kantor’s defence counsel, requested a postponement until 3rd December, 1963, so that he could have time to prepare. Judge De Wet agreed to this and the case was remanded until the morning of 3rd December, 1963.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Case remanded till 3 December 1963
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
On this day Mr Coaker, of James Kantor’s defence counsel, requested a postponement until 3rd December, 1963, so that he could have time to prepare. Judge De Wet agreed to this and the case was remanded until the morning of 3rd December, 1963.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Case remanded till 3 December 1963
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
On this day Mr Coaker, of James Kantor’s defence counsel, requested a postponement until 3rd December, 1963, so that he could have time to prepare. Judge De Wet agreed to this and the case was remanded until the morning of 3rd December, 1963.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Case remanded till 3 December 1963
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s careful analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Application bail Lionel Bernstein (Continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s careful analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Application bail Lionel Bernstein (Continued)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This is the first day for which there are available dictabelt recordings of the court proceedings of the Rivonia Trial – although it was not the first day of trial itself. Three weeks prior to this day, on 9th October, 1963, the eleven men (including Bob Hepple) first appeared in the Palace of Justice in Pretoria in what would become known as the Rivonia Trial. Judge De Wet had postponed proceedings for three weeks so that the state and defence counsels could prepare for the hearing on the sufficiency of the charges listed in the indictment which took place on this day. The earliest available dictabelt recording begins a short while into Mr Fischer’s careful analysis of the state’s response to the request for particulars in which the state had unsatisfactorily answered on numerous occasions that “facts were in the knowledge of the accused” or simply refused answer.
Dr Lowen made his motion to quash the indictment in regard to James Kantor before Mr Fischer had concluded his application on behalf of the remaining accused (aside from Bob Hepple). Towards the end of Dr Lowen’s argument to quash the indictment Judge De Wet announced that he wished to hear the bail applications on this day and said that Dr Lowen could continue his argument tomorrow morning if he felt it necessary to do so. Mr Shwartz thereafter stood and continued with his bail application on behalf of James Kantor which he had already begun on a previous day. Proceedings concluded on this day with Mr Fischer delivering a bail application on behalf of Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Application bail Lionel Bernstein (Continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Application Quashing James Kantor (Continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Application quashing James Kantor (Continued)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Application quashing James Kantor (Continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing James Kantor
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing James Kantor
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing James Kantor
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing indictment (Continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing indictment (Continued)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Judgement quashed
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial’s proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don’t want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge’s remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar’s delivery of the opening address of the State’s case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state's case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar's opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution's plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution's case was Enith Kopani's identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family's properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team's abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Dr Percy Yutar sets out case
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial’s proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don’t want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge’s remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar’s delivery of the opening address of the State’s case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state’s case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar’s opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution’s plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution’s case was Enith Kopani’s identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family’s properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team’s abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Dr Percy Yutar sets out case
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial's proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don't want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge's remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar's delivery of the opening address of the State's case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state's case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar's opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution's plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution's case was Enith Kopani's identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family's properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team's abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Dr Percy Yutar sets out case
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Dr Percy Yutar sets out case (continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial’s proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don’t want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge’s remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar’s delivery of the opening address of the State’s case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state’s case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar’s opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution’s plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution’s case was Enith Kopani’s identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family’s properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team’s abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Dr Percy Yutar sets out case (continued)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial's proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don't want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge's remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar's delivery of the opening address of the State's case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state's case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar's opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution's plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution's case was Enith Kopani's identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family's properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team's abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Dr Persy Yutar sets out case (continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial’s proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don’t want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge’s remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar’s delivery of the opening address of the State’s case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state’s case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar’s opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution’s plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution’s case was Enith Kopani’s identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family’s properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team’s abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Dr Percy Yutar sets out case (continued) Frederick Johannes van Biljon
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial’s proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don’t want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge’s remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar’s delivery of the opening address of the State’s case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state’s case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar’s opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution’s plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution’s case was Enith Kopani’s identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family’s properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team’s abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Dr Percy Yutar sets out case (continued) Getuies: Frederick Johannes van Biljon
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial's proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don't want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge's remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar's delivery of the opening address of the State's case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state's case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar's opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution's plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution's case was Enith Kopani's identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family's properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team's abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Dr Percy Yutar sets out case (continued) Frederick Johannes van Biljon
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial’s proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don’t want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge’s remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar’s delivery of the opening address of the State’s case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state’s case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar’s opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution’s plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution’s case was Enith Kopani’s identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family’s properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team’s abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuies: Frederick Johannes van Biljon (vervolg) Enith Kopani
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial’s proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don’t want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge’s remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar’s delivery of the opening address of the State’s case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state’s case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar’s opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution’s plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution’s case was Enith Kopani’s identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family’s properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team’s abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuies: Frederick Johannes van Biljon (vervolg) Enith Kopani
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial's proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don't want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge's remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar's delivery of the opening address of the State's case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state's case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar's opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution's plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution's case was Enith Kopani's identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family's properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team's abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuies: Frederick Johannes van Biljon (vervolg) Enith Kopani
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial’s proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don’t want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge’s remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar’s delivery of the opening address of the State’s case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state’s case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar’s opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution’s plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution’s case was Enith Kopani’s identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family’s properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team’s abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuie: Enith Kopani (vervolg)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial’s proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don’t want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge’s remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar’s delivery of the opening address of the State’s case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state’s case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar’s opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution’s plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution’s case was Enith Kopani’s identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family’s properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team’s abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuie: Enith Kopani (vervolg)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial's proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don't want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge's remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar's delivery of the opening address of the State's case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state's case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar's opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution's plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution's case was Enith Kopani's identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family's properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team's abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuie: Enith Kopani (vervolg)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial’s proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don’t want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge’s remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar’s delivery of the opening address of the State’s case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state’s case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar’s opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution’s plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution’s case was Enith Kopani’s identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family’s properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team’s abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuie: Enith Kopani (vervolg)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial’s proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don’t want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge’s remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar’s delivery of the opening address of the State’s case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state’s case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar’s opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution’s plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution’s case was Enith Kopani’s identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family’s properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team’s abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuie: Enith Kopani (vervolg)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial’s proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don’t want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge’s remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar’s delivery of the opening address of the State’s case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state’s case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar’s opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution’s plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution’s case was Enith Kopani’s identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family’s properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team’s abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuies: Enith Kopani Solomon Sepedi
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial’s proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don’t want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge’s remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar’s delivery of the opening address of the State’s case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state’s case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar’s opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution’s plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution’s case was Enith Kopani’s identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family’s properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team’s abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuies: Enith Kopani Solomon Sepedi
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial's proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don't want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge's remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar's delivery of the opening address of the State's case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state's case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar's opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution's plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution's case was Enith Kopani's identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family's properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team's abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuie: Enith Kopani (vervolg)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial's proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don't want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge's remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar's delivery of the opening address of the State's case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state's case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar's opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution's plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution's case was Enith Kopani's identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family's properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team's abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuies: Enith Kopani Solomon Sepedi
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial’s proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don’t want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge’s remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar’s delivery of the opening address of the State’s case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state’s case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar’s opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution’s plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution’s case was Enith Kopani’s identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family’s properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team’s abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuie: Solomon Sepedi (vervolg)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial’s proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don’t want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge’s remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar’s delivery of the opening address of the State’s case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state’s case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar’s opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution’s plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution’s case was Enith Kopani’s identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family’s properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team’s abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuie: Solomon Sepedi (vervolg)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial's proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don't want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge's remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar's delivery of the opening address of the State's case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state's case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar's opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution's plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution's case was Enith Kopani's identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family's properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team's abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuie: Solomon Sepedi (vervolg)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial’s proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don’t want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge’s remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar’s delivery of the opening address of the State’s case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state’s case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar’s opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution’s plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution’s case was Enith Kopani’s identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family’s properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team’s abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuie: Solomon Sepedi
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial’s proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don’t want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge’s remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar’s delivery of the opening address of the State’s case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state’s case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar’s opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution’s plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution’s case was Enith Kopani’s identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family’s properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team’s abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuie: Solomon Sepedi
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
This day contained a number of significant moments in the sequence of the trial's proceedings. The first of these significant moments was the hearing of pleas from the ten accused. Appearing in order of their assigned numbers, each of the accused stood and pleaded not guilty. In what has become a defining moment of the Rivonia Trial, each of the accused supplemented their pleas of not guilty with bold political statements. All expressed the view that the apartheid government should be on trial, and not the defendants. Only Accused No.8, James Kantor, did not associate himself with this view and merely stated to the court that he was not guilty. In response to this unusual situation, Judge De Wet hurriedly exclaimed, “I don't want any political speeches; you must plead guilty or not guilty to the charges … nothing else”. Yet, the judge's remarks had no effect on the politically- charged pleas given by nine of the ten accused.
The next significant moment was Dr Yutar's delivery of the opening address of the State's case. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, the opening address by Dr Yutar was “uncharacteristically concise” and from a legal perspective, he argues, it was perhaps the best work that Dr Yutar produced throughout the entire trial. In the opening address, Dr Yutar explained that proof for the state's case would come from a selection of documents seized during the police raids of Rivonia (11th July, 1963), Travallyn (27th August, 1963) and Mountain View (5th September, 1963), as well as from oral evidence given by circa.200 witnesses.
Following Dr Yutar's opening address, George Bizos informed the court that his colleagues, Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange, were engaged in other part-heard matters, which would require their respective involvement at certain periods during the trial. This, combined with other considerations, led the defence team tow divide the work for the trial amongst themselves. Mr Bizos, Mr Fischer and Mr Chaskalson were to appear for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr Bizos and Mr Berrange for Accused Nos. 3 and 5; Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange and Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 6; Mr Bizos, Mr Berrange, and Mr Chaskalson for Accused No. 7; Mr Bizos alone would appear for Accused No. 9; and, lastly, Mr Chaskalson would appear for Accused No. 10. His own council would represent accused No.8, James Kantor, and Mr Coaker was to appear for him.
Dr Yutar then provided an explanation regarding the numbering of exhibits. He stated that exhibits would all be labelled and identified numerically, starting from number one. Those found at Rivonia would be preceded by the letter R; those from Travallyn marked T; those from Mountain View marked M; and those that came from, or affected directly, James Kantor would be marked K. Other documents, such as plans and photos, would be given the markings A, B, C, D, and so on. Thereafter, Dr Yutar informed the court of the prosecution's plans to call 13 witnesses during the first week, the first ten of which did not affect Accused No. 8, and the last three of which did.
The final point of significance of this day was the first hearing of evidence by state witnesses, as detailed below.
Witnesses Called
1st State Witness: D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen – Police photographer.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Naudé.
D/Sgt Frederik Johannes Van Biljoen was a police photographer who went with Sgt Dirker to Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. There he took photographs and drew up the plan of the house and outbuildings at Liliesleaf Farm which was submitted to court as Exhibit A.
His examination-in-chief consists almost entirely of his descriptions of the photographs taken of Liliesleaf Farm, Travallyn and Mountain View which were Exhibit B. He also attended the raid on Mountain View and prepared the plan, Exhibit C.
Cross-examination reserved.
2nd State Witness: Enith (Kgopane) Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Mr and Mrs Goldreich employed Enith Kopani sometime in July, 1960, as a house-worker whilst they were living in Parktown. When the Goldreichs moved to Liliesleaf Farm in December, 1961, Enith Kopani continued her employment as a house-worker at this new location. In the main, the examination-in-chief consisted of her identifying several of the accused and named co-conspirators who visited Liliesleaf Farm, including where they stayed and what they did. This was done with constant reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit D – which was a photograph album of the accused and conspirators.
Enith Kopani was also required to identify typewriters and other machinery seized during the raid of Rivonia, as depicted in Exhibit B. Of key importance to the prosecution's case was Enith Kopani's identification of the first six defendants – Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Denis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Mohamed Kathrada, and Lionel “Rusty” Bernstein – as well as advocate Joseph Slovo, as having frequently visted or resided at Liliesleaf Farm, and in the Thatched Cottage in particular, at various times since 1961.
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos only completed a portion of his cross-examination of Enith Kopani on this day. It is interesting to note that he based much of his cross-examination on what are notably humanist grounds, by asking the witness about her imprisonment and by gesturing to the extremely harsh and inhumane conditions under which she was detained. From a legal and strategic perspective, it appears that Mr Bizos perused this line of questioning to expose the constant pressure put on the witness, Enith Kopani, by the police, to provde information she claimed not to know, while she was held in physically and mentally traumatising conditions, with no foreseeable end in sight, during the 90-day detention period. In his questioning, Mr Bizos also emphasized the fact that Enith Kopani was not confident that she could identify Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as a person she saw visiting the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf, without his beard. Even when consulting the photograph album, Exhibit D, which contained both a picture of a bearded and non-bearded Denis Goldberg, she was unconvinced that they were images of the same person.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Solomon Sepedi was first employed by the Goldreich family in December, 1958, and worked alongside Enith Kopani at several of the family's properties, including Rivonia. His examination-in-chief was very similar to that of Enith Kopani, as both identified the first six defendants as frequent visitors to or residents of Liliesleaf Farm, and the Thatched Cottage in particular.
As with the previous witness, Solomon Sepedi identified Accused No. 5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having handled printing machinery (depicted in photographs 11 and 12 of Exhibit B) whilst at Liliesleaf Farm. Solomon Sepedi also identified Accused No. 7, Raymond Mhlaba, as someone who visited the Thatched Cottage, but he did not recognise him in the courtroom without a beard. Dr Yutar also questioned this witness extensively on the presence of underground wires on the Liliesleaf property used for broadcasting on Radio Freedom.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/6A/1b) (Vol.48/6A/2b) (Vol.48/6A/3b) (Vol.48/6A/4b) (Vol.48/6A/5b) (Vol.48/6B/6b) (Vol.48/6B/7b) (Vol.48/6B/8b) (Vol.48/6B/9).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Indictment, Annexures and Opening Address by Dr Yutar (MS.385/1).
Copy of Opening Address by Dr Yutar submitted to the Court (MS.385/35/5).
Alphabetical list of exhibits and some exhibits (MS.385/14).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Team's abridged transcripts on Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuie: Solomon Sepedi
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing (continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing (continued)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing (continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing indictment (continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing indictment (continued)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Quashing indictment (continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Dr Percy Yutar's reply quashing
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Dr Percy Yutar's reply quashing
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Dr Percy Yutar's reply quashing
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Dr Percy Yutar's reply quashing
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Dr Percy Yutar's reply quashing
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Proceedings on this day included Dr Lowen’s continued argument for the quashing of the indictment on behalf of, and in relation to, his client James Kantor – Accused Nos. 9 and 10 – as well as Mr Fischer’s continued argument to quash the indictment on behalf of all of the accused, save for James Kantor and Bob Hepple.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Dr Percy Yutar's reply quashing
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuies: Enith Kopani, Solomon Sepeni en Thomas Mashiyana
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuies: Enith Kopani, Solomon Sepedi en Thomas Mashiyana
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuies:Enith Kopani, Solomon Sepedi en Thomas Mashiyana
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuies: Thomas Mashiyana (vervolg)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuies: Thomas Mashiyana (vervolg)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuies: Thomas Mashiyana (vervolg)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] XD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] XD
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] XD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] XD and Valeloo Percival Jelliman XD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] XD and Valeloo Percival Jelliman XD
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] XD and Valeloo Percival Jelliman XD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Valeloo Percival Jelliman
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Valeloo Percival Jelliman
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Valeloo Percival Jelliman
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuies: Valeloo Percival Jelliman en Joseph Mashiyana
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuies: Valeloo Percival Jelliman en Joseph Mashiyana
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuies: Valeloo Percival Jelliman en Joseph Mashiyana
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuies: Joseph Mashiyana (vervolg) en Phillip Nkosi Mokolo
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuies: Joseph Mashiyana (vervolg) en Phillip Nkosi Mokolo
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuies: Joseph Mashiyana (vervolg) en Phillip Nkosi Mokolo
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Rasmus Makula
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Rasmus Makula
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Rasmus Makula
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuie: Rasmus Makula (vervolg)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuie: Rasmus Makula (vervolg)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
The previous day’s activities continued on Wednesday 4th December, with Mr Bizos of the defence team re-calling two state witnesses for further cross-examination. Thereafter, Dr Yutar called four new state witnesses for examination. As with the day before, the prosecution’s examination of witnesses was primarily concerned with the identification of persons who visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and what their respective activities were prior to the police raid on 11th July, 1963.
Witnesses Called
2nd State Witness: Enith Kopani – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued.
The primary purpose of recalling Enith Kopani for further cross-examination seems to have been to highlight that her recollections of the timeframe during which certain of the accused visited or stayed at Liliesleaf Farm could well be inaccurate. In his questioning of the witness, Mr Bizos exposed that the statements made by Enith Kopani to the police and to the court could be inaccurate by up to as much as two months.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
3rd State Witness: Solomon Sepedi – House-worker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The brief cross-examination of Solomon Sepedi mirrors that of Enith Kopani on 3rd December, 1963. Mr Bizos line of questioning focused on the conditions under which Solomon Sepedi had been detained and required to give statements since his arrest on the 11th of July, 1963.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifani] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thomas Mashifana was employed by Arthur Goldreich to work on the land at Liliesleaf Farm in 1961. He stated that ‘David’ (Nelson Mandela) had stayed on the farm, reading books and papers, since the time he first arrived at Liliesleaf. The only other activity he had seen ‘David’ engage in, was shooting a hunting rifle with Arthur Goldreich one day.
Thomas Mashifana claimed that after the “old European man” called Jeramiah (also Jelliman) moved out of the Thatched Cottage in January, 1962, no-one moved in until 1963 – the year of the arrests. He also claimed that it was only ‘bantu’ people, and no Europeans, who visited Nelson Mandela in his room.
The witness went on to describe, through Exhibit D and Exhibit B, what he knew of the time spent by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Liliesleaf Farm. As was the case with the two previous state witnesses (Kopani and Sepedi), Thomas Mashifana claimed not to have known Accused Nos. 9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, and he made no mention of Accused No. 8, James Kantor, at all. The witness also identified Bob Hepple from photo 16 of Exhibit B, as a frequent visitor to both the Main House and the Thatched Cottage.
After Dr Yutar had completed his questioning, Mr Bizos requested that cross-examination of this witness be held-over until the following Monday on the grounds that his senior colleague, Mr Berrange, was absent from the court attending to another part-heard matter. Moreover, that he, Mr Berrange, was only to return on Monday, and wished to cross-examine the witness then. In response to this request, Dr Yutar argued that the police were not keen to continue holding witnesses in protected custody, and that “if the witness were to be released until Monday we would not see him here on Monday”. Judge De Wet agreed with Dr Yutar’s arguments and ordered that the cross-examination be held over until the next morning only.
Cross-examination is reserved.
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar first questioned Valeloo Jelliman about his political leanings and previous membership of an organisation called Friends of Soviet Russia. Valeloo Jelliman admitted to having attended lectures and meetings associated with the Friends of Soviet Russia and to being a member of the organisation. However, he strongly denied being a member of the Communist Party. Valeloo Jelliman identified Michael Harmel, Lionel Bernstein, Joe Slovo, and Father Huddleston, as people he interacted with as a member of the Friends of Soviet Russies, and makes the point that not all of them were communists.
As Valeloo Jelliman’s eyesight was particularly poor, he was asked to walk along the dock and identify any of the accused he recognised. The only person he recognised was Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. In October, 1961, Valeloo Jelliman received a letter from the offices of the New Age newspaper and, although he could not recall who signed it, it lead to his visiting Johannesburg and meeting with Michael Harmel. During this meeting, Valeloo Jelliman was engaged as caretaker of the house at Rivonia Liliesleaf Farm. Valeloo Jelliman states that he believed that Michael Harmel hired him purely because he was a regular contributor to newspapers such as Advance, New Age, and Spark, and as such, he was considered a trustworthy person.
Valeloo Jelliman only stayed in employment until February 1962 and did not provide any other significant evidence regarding the political activities taking place on Liliesleaf Farm during or after his time there.
Cross-examination reserved until the next day.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Joseph Mashifana was the son of the fourth witness called by the state, Thomas Mashifana. He was brought to Rivonia on the 11th of March, 1962, and was employed as a farmworker. His testimony mirrored that of the abovementioned house and farm workers brought to court as state witnesses. By this stage of the proceedings, Mr Bizos had risen on at least four occasions in order to object, unsuccessfully, to what he perceived to be leading questions put to the witnesses by Dr Yutar.
During Joseph Mashifana’s examination-in-chief, Dr Yutar asked the witness if he could identify the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D, “whose fingerprints was found in that room…”. Following this question, an interaction between Judge De Wet and Mr Bizos took place. It is noteworthy because to illuminates the extent to which Judge De Wet’s consistently perceived Mr Bizos’ interventions and objections as timewasting, obvious, and seemingly frustrating distractions during the first week of the trial. Before the witness could answer the question, Mr Bizos said, “I must again raise this my lord, it’s no concern of this witness…”
“It is formally the lead of evidence, Mr Bizos”, interrupted Judge De Wet.
“But my lord, the witness is being told that the fingerprints of this person have been found in the room…”
“We properly understand English, the Court was told that”, snapped Judge De Wet irritably.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos no longer attempted to justify his position and sat back down. Joseph Mashifana did not recognise the person in photo 12 of Exhibit D. The remainder of his xamination-in-chief concerned the topics of the erection of poles and wires, as well as the creation of a new road, at Liliesleaf Farm.
Cross-examination reserved.
7th State Witness: Phillip Nkosi Mokolo – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Phillip Mokolo was recruited by Thomas Mashifana and Percival Jelliman in 1962, as a farmworker at Liliesleaf Farm. His examination-in-chief was brief in comparison to the witnesses who preceded him. Interestingly, during his examination-in-chief Phillip Mokolo was sure that the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D was Accused No.8, James Kantor.
Cross-examination by Mr John Coaker (for Accused No.8, James Kantor).
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination of this witness was based on one issue alone – the false identification of James Kantor as the person depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Phillip Mokolo was convinced that the man in the photo (Denis Goldberg) was the eighth man sitting in the dock, because the two had the exact same beard. When asked by Mr Coaker if he could identify the person in photograph No.8 of Exhibit D, Phillip Mokolo responded that this was not the same man and that he did not know him.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Rasmus Makula was employed as a farmworker at Rivonia in November, 1961. His examination-in-chief was similar to that of the other Liliesleaf workers.
Like Valeloo Jelliman, Rasmus Makula was asked to walk down the bench and point out anyone he recognised as having visited or resided at Liliesleaf Farm. Rasmus Makula identified Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Unlike, the previous witnesses, however, Rasmus Makula claimed that he had seen Accused No.8, James Kantor, at Rivonia a number of days before the arrests on 11th July, 1963.
Cross-examination is reserved and court is adjourned until 10:00 am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/7A/10b) (Vol.48/7A/11b) (Vol.48/7A/12b) (Vol.48/7A/13b) (Vol.48/7A/14b) (Vol.48/7A/15b) (Vol.48/7B/16) (Vol.48/7B/17b) (Vol.48/7B/18b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 4th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
Court Records of Evidence given by Joseph Mashifane and V P Jelliman (MS.385/2).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Annotated copy of court transcription on Evidence: J Mashipane (AD1844.A11.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, Thatched Cottage, 90-day detentions, Michael Harmel, Bob Hepple.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Getuie: Rasmus Makula (vervolg)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Recall Valeloo Percefall Jelliman, Recall Thomas Mashiyana
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Recall Valeloo Percefall Jelliman, Recall Thomas Mashiyana
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Recall Valeloo Percefall Jelliman, Recall Thomas Mashiyana
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Thomas Mashiyana, Joseph Mashiyana
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Thomas Mashiyana, Joseph Mashiyana
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Judgement quashed
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane]
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane]
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane]
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] XXD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] XXD
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] XXD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] XXD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] XXD
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] XXD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] XXD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] XXD
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] XXD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane], Rasmus Makula (recalled)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane], Rasmus Makula (recalled)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane], Rasmus Makula (recalled)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Rasmus Makula XXD, Thwadi Makena XD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Rasmus Makula XXD, Thwadi Makena XD
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Rasmus Makula XXD, Thwadi Makena XD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Thwadi Makena XD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Thwadi Makena XD
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Thwadi Makena XD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Thwadi Makena XD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Thwadi Makena XD
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
As with the previous day, proceedings began with the defence recalling a number of state witnesses for cross-examination. After which, Dr Yutar called another witness for the state. This person was also a farmworker at Rivonia and, like the others, was being held in custody at the time of his appearance in court.
The cross-examination of Joseph Mashifane was, arguably, a significant moment, for, as historians have argued, it proved to be a significant victory for the defence team during these early stages of the Trial.
Witnesses Called
5th State Witness: Valeloo Percival Jelliman – European Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson requested that Valeloo Jelliman be called first for cross-examination because he was “rather ailing”. The cross-examination was very brief; Mr Chaskalson prompted Valeloo Jelliman to admit that he was not, to his recollection, paid by Lionel Bernstein when employed at Rivonia and that at the time of his membership in the Friends of the Soviet Union, it was a respectable organisation.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar
In his re-examination, Dr Yutar stressed the point that Lionel Bernstein may well have paid Mr Jelliman at some point but that the witness could not be certain of this. Furthermore, he also prompted the witness to admit that, on at least one occasion, he (Jelliman) had seen Lionel Bernstein addressing meetings of a communist nature on the City Hall steps.
4th State Witness: Thomas Mashifana [Mashifane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
As with the other house and farmworkers from Rivonia already cross-examined, during his cross-examination, Thomas Mashifana acknowledged that the dates he provided concerning the comings and goings of people at Liliesleaf Farm were not completely accurate. The witness was also asked numerous clarifcatory questions about the erection of poles and the digging of a furrow to run a radio wire across the Liliesleaf property.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Of particular interest is the moment in which Thomas Mashifana, during his re-examination, volunteered a highly descriptive and affected statement about his experience in police custody. Thomas Mashifana told the court that police told him that the statement he provided during his detention after his arrest on the 11th July, 1963, was ‘not proper’. The police told him to undress and he did. He told the court that he was then forced by a group of police officers to run naked around the table in the interrogation room whilst being kicked and beaten.
In telling of his experience of police brutality, and of the injuries he sustained as a result, Thomas Mashifana posed a question to the judge: “why was I assaulted like that when I was not committing any offence?” Judge De Wet simply responded with the statement, “Well, yes, you can make a complaint and it will be investigated”. Thomas Mashifana informed the Judge that he had made a report but that nothing had come of it as of yet.
Dr Yutar insisted to the Judge that when he previously asked this witness if he had been ill-treated in custody, he had responded, “No”. Judge De Wet said that he was not going to follow it up and that the prosecution should do so. Judge De Wet’s concern seemed only to be that the treatment of Thomas Mashifana might have influenced his statement, leading him to tell the court something that was not true.
Thomas Mashifana explained that what he had said to the court was true. However, he went on, “certain things I said, I did not say as I wanted to say” and this is because “when a person is being killed you cannot speak as you would otherwise speak, if you were not suffering pain”.
6th State Witness: Joseph Mashifana [Mashifane/Mashiyana/Mashipane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
The main point of interest in this cross-examination was the questioning of Joseph Mashifana’s identification, albeit tentative, of Lionel Bernstein as having been personally and extensively involved in the erection of the radio masts for broadcasting on the Rivonia property. Despite the witness’s insistence that he had seen Accused No.6 involved in this activity, Mr Chaskalson was able to prove that it was impossible for Lionel Bernstein to have been present at Liliesleaf on the day in question, because he was under an order of house arrest. According to the historian, Kenneth Broun, Arthur Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Joseph Mashifana was a success for the defence in the early stages of the trial.
Following Mr Chaskalson, Mr Bizos engaged in a cross-examination of the witness. Mr Bizos strengthened the defence’s case at this point, by casting significant doubt on the validity of Joseph Mashifana’s statement and, in particular, his inconsistent identifications of several of the accused at Liliesleaf Farm.
An exemplary moment was when Mr Bizos pressed Joseph Mashifana to say why he had not mentioned to the prosecution that he had seen, as he now claimed, Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, digging the furrow in which the radio wire was placed and buried. In his response, the witness said, “Because I have to tell the truth”. This was the first of many indications arising from Mr Bizos’ cross-examination that demonstrated that the witness’s evidence was dubious, contradictory, and unreliable. In closing his cross-examination, Mr Bizos put it to the witness that he was confused and that he did not remember all of the things that he said he remembered.
The prosecution requested no re-examination. Dr Yutar stated that the issue of Thomas Mashifana’s ill-treatment had been reported to a senior police official, but that the witness requested that neither the police nor Dr Yutar take any further action.
8th State Witness: Rasmus Makula – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Coaker.
Mr Bizos’ brief cross-examination highlighted that the witness was only ever concerned with his own work at Rivonia and that he did not spend much time at all, day or night, near the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Coaker’s cross-examination rested on exposing Rasmus Makula’s identification of Accused No.8, James Kantor, as the man depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D, as false. The witness admited this was a mistake, he was confused because of the similarities between the beard of Accused No.8 in court, and the beard of Denis Goldberg depicted in photo No.3 of Exhibit D. Following further exposure of misidentification concerning Accused Nos. 6, 3 and 8, on the part of this witness, Dr Yutar informed the court that he will not rely on the identifcations so far made and joked about having himself now recognised the danger of “the beard issue”.
No re-examination requested.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Thwadi Makena recollected seeing a young European woman using a microphone outside the Thatched Cottage during a day (the date of which he could not remember). Aside from this, his was similar to that of previous farmworker witnesses, and did little more than tie several of the accused to Liliesleaf Farm and the Thatched Cottage.
No cross-examination requested.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frank Mohohloane’s examination-in-chief followed the same pattern as those that preceded it. The witness was asked to point out the accused in the courtroom, whom he had seen at Rivonia. Thereafter, he was asked to identify certain people, rooms, and machinery depicted in the photographs of Exhibits D and B. Once again, the witness identified Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as having worked with the Duplicating Machine regularly.
Before the completion of Dr Yutar’s examination-in-chief of this witness is concluded, the court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/8A/19b) (Vol.48/8A/20b) (Vol.48/8A/21b) (Vol.48/8A/22b) (Vol.48/8A/23b) (Vol.48/8B/24b) (Vol.48/8B/25b) (Vol.48/8B/26b) (Vol.48/8B/27b) (Vol.48/8B/28b).
Percy Yutar Papers
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th December, 1963 (Ms.385/36/7).
Exhibit B. Photograph album of Rivonia, Travallyn and Mountain View (MS.385/15).
Photograph Album of Accused and Conspirators (MS.385/19).
WITS Historical Papers
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
State Witnesses, Liliesleaf Farmworkers, Rivonia, police brutality, 90-day detention, Thatched Cottage.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Thwadi Makena XD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witnesses: Frank Mohohloane, Thwadi Makena, Emma Ezra
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witnesses: Frank Mohohloane, Thwadi Makena, Emma Ezra
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witnesses: Frank Mohohloane, Thwadi Makena, Emma Ezra
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witnesses: Emma Ezra (continued), Recall: Frank Mohohloane, Ismail Essop Makda
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witnesses: Emma Ezra (continued), Recall: Frank Mohohloane, Ismail Essop Makda
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witnesses: Emma Ezra (continued), Recall: Frank Mohohloane, Ismail Essop Makda
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Ismail Essop Makda
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Ismail Essop Makda
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Ismail Essop Makda
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Ismail Essop Makda (continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Ismail Essop Makda (continued)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Ismail Essop Makda (continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Ismail Essop Makda
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Ismail Essop Makda
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Ismail Essop Makda
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Ismail Essop Makda (continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Ismail Essop Makda (continued)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Ismail Essop Makda (continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Ismail Essop Makda
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Ismail Essop Makda
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Ismail Essop Makda
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Ismail Essop Makda (continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Ismail Essop Makda (continued)
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
Proceedings began on this day with an immediate resumption of Dr Yutar’s unfinished examination-in-chief of Frank Mohohloane, the final witness within the category of Rivonia workers to be called by the State. His examination-in-chief as well as the cross-examinations of Thwadi Makena and Frank Mohohloane represented the last time the witenesses working at Liliesleaf Farm were the focus of examination. Two further witnesses were called on this day. The first, was Anne Ezra, wife of Liliesleaf Farm owner Vivian Ezra, and the second, Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the offices of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
The examination-in-chief of Mrs Ezra was brief, while that of Mr Makda was extensive and only completed by Dr Yutar over the course of the next day’s proceedings. The shift in examination focus, away from the Liliesleaf Farm employees, and on to the employees of James Kantor and Partners’ firm is indicative of the shift in the prosecution’s case towards Accused No.8, James Kantor. For, he had yet to be implicated significantly in any acts of wrongdoing by previous witnesses.
Witnesses Called
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar resumed his examination-in-chief with questions concerning the infrastructure involved in radio broadcasting from Liliesleaf Farm. Frank Mohohloane stated that he saw a Bantu person and two European men wearing headphones and operating the radio. He also saw Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, operating the radio.
Cross-examination reserved.
9th State Witness: Thwadi Makena – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
Mr Bizos questioned Thwadi Makena about a statement he had made during his examination-in-chief concerning the radio at Liliesleaf Farm. Thwadi Makena claimed to have heard news in Sepedi on the radio at Rivonia about the death of a school principle from his (Makena’s) hometown of Pokane, about one week prior to the arrests. The purpose of Mr Bizos’ questioning appears to have been to cast doubt on the accuracy of the date on which the witness claimed to have heard this on the very radio confiscated from the outbuildings at Liliesleaf.
No re-examination requested.
11th State Witness: Anne Ezra – Wife of Vivian Ezra.
Cross-examination is reserved.
10th State Witness: Frank Mohohloane [Hlotloane] – Farmworker, Rivonia. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson and Mr Bizos.
In his cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson, Frank Mohohloane stated that he was certain, despite hesitation, that the man he saw on two occasions at Rivonia going into the Thatched Cottage was the same as that in No.10 of Exhibit D. However, the witness admitted that there was no particular reason for him to take notice of this man on either occasion, as he was busy with his work.
Mr Bizos’ cross-examination concerned the witness’s claim that on the evening before his arrest he saw Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, driving a Kombi (motor vehicle) away from the property. Mr Bizos informed the witness that evidence would be presented that confirmed the vehicle to which he referred was in fact parked in the garage on the evening prior to the arrests. Despite this, Frank Mohohloane maintained that he saw the vehicle being driven off the farm.
No re-examination requested by the prosecution.
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ismail Essop Makda was first employed as a clerk for the firm James Kantor and Partners in 1956. Ismail Makda was a clerk in the offices of James Kantor and Partners at this time, with his own office space and responsibility for his own clients. Between 1956 and 1960, James Kantor’s firm changed its name at least twice, reflecting the names of various partners who joined the firm and subsequently left it. These partners were Mr Edelsohn/Edelstein, Mr Zwarenstein, and, for a period of time, Joel Joffe. James Kantor and Partners was important to the trial as, from late 1960 onwards, James Kantor partnered with Harold Wolpe.
In the initial stages of Dr Yutar’s examination, he asked Ismail Makda to tell the court what name he used to call Harold Wolpe when at the firm and what name he was given by Harold Wolpe in response. Ismail Makda called Harold Wolpe “you bloody communist” to which he received the reply “you racialist”. Without probing into the sentiments informing these office nicknames Dr Yutar tried to give the court the impression that the term “you bloody communist” was an acknowledgement of Harold Wolpe’s sinister political beliefs entering his place of work.
Ismail Makda was asked to tell the court the names of any people with known political affiliations who visited the offices of James Kantor and Partners both before and after the time when communication between communists was prohibited. Of the accused, Ismail Makda identified No.1, Nelson Mandela, No.2, Walter Sisulu, No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and No.6, Arthur Goldreich, as clients of the firm who visited on occasions both before and after the restriction on communism was put in place. Mr and Mrs Harmel, Vivian Ezra, and Mr Hodgson were also named as clients who visited both before and after the restrictions. John Joseph Marx, Ben Turok, and Cecil George Williams, are named as visitors to the firm only before the restrictions were in place.
Ismail Makda was led to state that all the above named visitors met with Mr Wolpe in the latter’s office at James Kantor and Partners, prior to the time when the restrictions on communication between listed communists was enforced. After the restriction as implemented, however, it was often the case that Harold Wolpe would ask Ismail Makda to leave his office, for between 30 minutes to an hour, so that it could be used for these meetings instead.
Throughout this examination, Dr Yutar attempted to conjure an image of James Kantor and Partners as a firm riddled with dubious practices and maladministration intended to facilitate and further unlawful and sinister political agendas – particularly since the arrival of Harold Wolpe.
Files and documents which demonstrated certain abnormalities in legal practice and record keeping in the financial books and client files of James Kantor and Partners were submitted as exhibits through this witness. The client files – A. Letele, Vivian Ezra, and Julius First – are submitted as evidence and examined thoroughly by the state during this day. Dr Yutar led the witness in such a way as to suggest that the reason that none of these files had substantial written notes on their covers, providing instructions and information regarding the transactions and consultations with clients concerned, was because of an attempt to obscure or hide the dubious contents they held.
For example, the file of Vivian Ezra had the note “Purchase of Property” on the cover, but no instructions or explanations accounting for the cheques and other documents regarding the purchase and upkeep of Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia contained within. The file of Julius First, Exhibit K.40, was another blank-covered file examined at length by Dr Yutar.
The documents within told of an amount of R14, 000 received from one S. Cohen and then deposited into the trust account of James Kantor and Partners. The same day as James Kantor and Partners received this R14, 000, it was sent out of the account in the form of five cheques. Two of these cheques were to the account of J. First, one cheque was to M. First, another to B. Cohen, and the final cheque was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd. Dr Yutar informed the court that evidence still to be presented would show that Ruron (Pty) Ltd. was operated by J. First and its name was an amalgamation of the names Ruth First and Ronald First. Once again, there was no record of these transactions from 8 March, 1962, and Ismail Makda admitted that they were not a reflection of so-called normal practice for a law firm.
The final file submitted as evidence on this day was that of another named conspirator, Mr P. J. Hodgson, who received money from the firm during March, 1963. This file also came with no explanatory notes as to why an amount of R300 had been channelled through Kantor’s office from J. Rosenberg to Mr Hodgson’s account. It is during the discussion of all of the financial transactions and lack of records connected with J. Rosenberg that the court is adjourned until 10:00am the following Monday 9 December, 1963.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.48/9A/29b) (Vol.48/9A/30b) (Vol.48/9A/31b) (Vol.48/9A/32) (Vol.48/9A/33b) (Vol.48/9B/34b) (Vol.48/9B/35b) (Vol.48/9B/36b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 6 December, 1963, are found at (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm, Ruth First, Ronald First, Ruron.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Witness: Ismail Essop Makda (continued)
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda XD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda XD
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Judgement quashed
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda XXD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda XXD
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda XXD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda XXD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda XXD
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda XXD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda XXD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda XXD
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda XXD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda XXD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda XXD
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda XXD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda XXD, Ralph Sepel XD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda XXD, Ralph Sepel XD
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ismail Essop Makda XXD, Ralph Sepel XD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ralph Sepel XD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ralph Sepel XD
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ralph Sepel XD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ralph Sepel XD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ralph Sepel XD
Chronological
None
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
There were only two state witnesses dealt with in court on this day. Proceedings opened with the continued examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar of Ismail Essop Makda, a clerk in the legal firm of James Kantor and Partners. Following on from this, was the examination of another minor witness whose evidence also related directly to the firm of James Kantor and Partners.
Witnesses Called
12th State Witness: Ismail Essop Makda – Clerk, James Kantor and Partners. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
In order to provide clarity regarding the many documents and files presented and discussed the previous day, Dr Yutar provided the court with exhibits, each being a summary, in schedule form of all the exhibits associated with the accounts of A. Letele, V. Ezra, J. First, and J. Rosenberg. These are Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I, J respectively.
The first new exhibit presented by Dr Yutar on this day was Exhibit I – a summary in schedule form of the account of C. G. Williams (also known as the Defence and Aid account). On the 18th March, 1963, an amount of R10, 000 was paid from C. G. Williams and then into the James Kantor and Partners Trust Account with no further instructions on either the receipts or file aside from “Defence and Aid”. Just like the abovementioned instance on 8th March, 1962, on the same day this amount of R10, 000 was received, it was also withdrawn from the firm’s account in the form of five cheques. Each cheque was for R2, 000 and all had the reference “bail funds”. The first was made out to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., the second to Amateur Photography, and the final three were made out as cash. Once again, despite his signature appearing on a number of the cheques and receipts, Ismail Makda was unable to provide the court with any additional information regarding these transactions.
The next exhibit handed in by Dr Yutar was Exhibit J, which was a summary in schedule form of the account of Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu. The documents in Sisulu’s file related to an amount of R6, 000 that was collected in order to pay bail on behalf of Walter Sisulu on 8th March, 1963. The accounts of J. Rosenberg, J. First, W. Sisulu, and others, were shown to have been used in a great number of un-recorded money transfers channelled through the trust account of the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Unlike the previous files examined the file of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, did have instructions on its cover, and was annotated with notes on consultation dates. However, the account of Kathrada was not examined very much in comparison to the others.
The final exhibit submitted to the court by Dr Yutar was a document found by Warrant Officer Dirker in the car of Arthur Goldreich on the 11th of July, 1963 – Exhibit R.1. Dr Yutar read allowed a three-page extract from the document to the courtroom, which Ismail Makda subsequently identified as being written in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe. The document discussed of the High Command and U.W.S. (also known as Umkhonto We Sizwe) and the expected roles and practices of officers acting under its authority for the liberation of African people. When he claimed not to know what either the High Command or U.W.S was, Dr Yutar asks Ismail Makda no further questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Coaker.
Mr Coaker began his cross-examination by leading the witness to admit that, when practicing with various partners between 1956 and 1959, James Kantor was involved in virtually none of the administrative or bookkeeping responsibilities of the firm. These were first the job of Mr Alec Edelsohn and later Mr Joel Joffe. Only when Kantor was practicing alone for a period did he assumed these responsibilities. It was during this time that he expressed his displeasure if he saw that a cash cheque had been drawn on the trust account of the firm. Thus, Mr Coaker made the point that when the books were the responsibility of James Kantor he did his best to keep them in order and to have a legally sufficient record of financial transactions.
Mr Coaker then goes on to discuss Harold Wolpe. Ismail Makda knew that prior to joining the firm Harold Wolpe “had not been tremendously successful at the bar” and that when Harold Wolpe joined the firm his sister was married to James Kantor. Upon joining the firm, Harold Wolpe was tasked with the responsibility of updating and maintaining the books of the firm. As such, it was not suspicious in anyway when in 1961 Harold Wolpe installed a mechanical system of bookkeeping at the firm as it fell under his responsibilities. Contrasting the impression of confusion and disorder given by Dr Yutar’s examination Ismail Makda stated under cross-examination that during this time, and under the new system introduced by Harold Wolpe, the books of the firm were kept in very good order.
Thereafter, Mr Coaker prompted the witness to provide the court with an understanding of Mr Kantor’s lifestyle. Ismail Makda painted a picture of James Kantor as being an extremely busy man, bringing in the majority of clients and principally responsible for handling the most difficult work. The witness went on to describe James Kantor as a tremendously hardworking attorney, who dealt with an astonishingly wide variety of clients and cases. Long working hours spent in courtrooms and shut away in his office at the firm indicated that he was under a heavy burden of work. James Kantor’s office was described as soundproof and farthest away from the reception room where clients were received. Kantor was seen seldom outside of his private office when at the firm, since he used an inter-communication system to communicate with colleagues.
Ismail Makda explained that the firm operated in such a way that James Kantor, Harold Wolpe and himself, each dealt with their own clients individually and exclusively. The witness never saw James Kantor taking an interest in, or interfering with, matters concerning Harold Wolpe or those of his clients. Mr Makda stated that it was common knowledge in the firm that James Kantor took no interest in what the other people were doing and nor did he know what they were doing.
Indeed, on occasions when Ismail Makda went into James Kantor’s office to request assistance with a matter he was told to “go look up the law for yourself, I’m too busy”. This recollection made Mr Coaker laugh audibly, but its importance lay in reiterating the defence’s claim that James Kantor remained unaware of any unlawful activities taking place within the firm James Kantor and Partners.
Ismail Makda continued that James Kantor was in courtrooms more often than he was in the office. His regular absence from the office often meant that cheques awaiting his signature often accumulated. Even though both Ismail Makda and Abram Kantor (James’ father who worked at the firm as an expert advisor) held signing rights, neither could sign off on a cheque without a second signature from James Kantor or Harold Wolpe. As both partners were often not in the office, James Kantor more so than Harold Wolpe, it was not uncommon for a pile of up to 200 unsigned cheques to accumulate on the desk of James Kantor before they were dealt with. Mr Coaker leads the witness to admit that, in light of this, it was not unreasonable or unusual for James Kantor to sign blank cheques or to sign cheques without taking note of their content.
Mr Makda confirmed that Mr J. Kantor trusted the members of his staff and left them in complete control of their operations at the firm. As such, the witness agreed, it was unlikely that James Kantor would have had any knowledge of monies transferred in and out of the trust account as that was the responsibility of the bookkeeper.
Contradicting the impression given by the prosecution during the examination-in-chief, Ismail agrees with Mr Coaker that it was the exception, rather than the rule, to find detailed notes on covers of client files. As such, Mr Coaker led the witness to confirm that there was nothing sinister about the files presented by the prosecution lacking notes on their covers. In fact, he claimed that there were hundreds of such files in the offices of the firm because, in recent years and particularly since the introduction of the mechanical bookkeeping system by Harold Wolpe, the practice of hand writing notes on client files had been abandoned mostly.
Under questioning Mr Makda states that when he requisitioned the cheques submitted as evidence by the prosecution he did so with no idea that he was participating in any unlawful activity. Mr Makda admits that he was in the office far more often than Mr J. Kantor and that he, unlike Mr J. Kantor who was usually closed in a soundproof office, was much more involved in the affairs of the office. Nevertheless, despite this extensive involvement in the affairs of the firm, Mr Makda did not have any suspicion of unlawful activities taking place.
Furthermore, in the period between the arrest of Mr Wolpe and Mr Kantor there was considerable time and opportunity for a person to simply find and remove all the files and cheques which had been submitted to the court as exhibits. As far as the witness knew, however, there had been no attempt to conceal or destroy anything from the firm’s offices and the police were given every assistance when they came to search the offices.
As far as Mr Makda was concerned, Mr Wolpe confined his political activities to assisting with the defence of persons who became involved in legal troubles on a legitimate basis as a lawyer. He never suspected that Harold Wolpe’s interest in politics would tend any way beyond the possible sympathy that he might have had for persons accused under certain laws. As such, the name ‘you bloody communist’ was used as a private joke between himself and Harold Wolpe and was not intended as an insult but a joke because Harold Wolpe was a listed communist. The only doubt Ismail Makda confessed to having was that by allowing Harold Wolpe to use his office for consultations with listed communists he (Makda) was facilitating the breaking of certain banning orders.
Further cross-examination by Mr Coaker was reserved to enable him to study circa.20 other files submitted to the court, which he had been unable to consult up until this point. Dr Yutar also requested the Judge to potentially re-call the witness for re-examination if need be.
13th State Witness: Ralph Sepel – Articled Clerk, A. B. Furman.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ralph Sepel was an articled clerk and professional assistant to Attorney A. B. Furman. Ralph Sepel’s wife was the sister of Barbra Kantor, James Kantor’s wife. The examination-in-chief of Ralph Sepel concerned his role in the founding of the company, Navian (Pty) Ltd., and the associated transfer of Liliesleaf Farm to this new company. In 1961, Vivian Ezra instructed Ralph Sepel to draw up a lease with a new tenant, Accused No.6, Arthur Goldreich, detailing a rental sum of only R100 per month. At this time, Mr Sepel knew Arthur Goldreich socially but he was not aware that Arthur Goldreich and Vivian Ezra knew each other at all. The majority of his examination-in-chief on this day concerned the payment, or lack-there-of, of this rental income and the difficulties it raised for auditors at the firm.
Towards the end of the day’s discussion turns to the package delivered by the previous state witness, Ismail Makda, to Ralph Sepel at the request of Harold Wolpe. It is revealed that the package contained R5, 000 in cash receipted through the trust account of James Kantor and Partners and provisionally credited to the company of Vivian Ezra, Navian (Pty) Ltd. Ralph Sepel found it highly unusual to receive such a large sum of money without instructions and did not know why Ezra had chosen to operate this way. The deposit slip recording the banking of this R5, 000 in favour of Navian (Pty) Ltd. as the first annual instalment for the Liliesleaf Farm property is submitted to the court as Exhibit M.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.48/10A/37b) (Vol.48/10A/38b) (Vol.48/10A/39b) (Vol.48/10A/40b) (Vol.48/10A/41b) (Vol.48/10B/42b) (Vol.48/10B/43b) (Vol.48/10B/44b) (Vol.48/10B/45b) (Vol.48/10B/46b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 9 December, 1963, (Ms.385/36/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.1).
Extract of Evidence of I. E. Madka (AD1844.A17.2).
Defence Team’s abridged record of Witnesses (AD1844.A6.1).
Key Words
James Kantor and Partners, Harold Wolpe, James Kantor, Purchase of Liliesleaf Farm.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Ralph Sepel XD
Chronological
Archival
None.
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts is an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access.
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Published
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
With Mr Berrange having recovered from his illness and returned to court, the defence began its cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. It is worth noting that the collection of documentary sources relating to the evaluation of Bruno Mtolo’s evidence is far more extensive than that of any other state witness called during the Rivonia Trial. The defence team’s set of papers stored at the Wits Historical Papers Archive includes notes complied by a number of the accused and defence lawyers concerning the background, personality, memory, and motives of Bruno Mtolo.
It is also interesting to note, as does historian Kenneth Broun, that while Dr Yutar referred to the witness as ‘Bruno’ in his examination, Mr Berrange and others of the defence team referred to the witness with the much more respectful name ‘Mr Mtolo’.
The chief issue at stake during this first day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was the factors he claimed resulted in his feeling of disillusionment and decision to become a state witness.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
After briefly clarifying Bruno Mtolo’s affiliation with SACTU, Mr Berrange launches directly into a line of questioning concerning the reasons given by Bruno Mtolo for his state of disillusionment and decision to turn state witness. The four reasons advanced by Bruno Mtolo during his examination-in-chief were that he became disillusioned because: He was not receiving the money he was promised; the leaders did not seem to care about the security of recruits; the leaders seemed to be financially comfortable; and lastly, these leaders had left the country to save their own skins. Mr Berrange states at the outset of his cross-examination that all of these reasons will be shown to be untrue.
As Mr Berrange introduced the subject of the witness’s disillusionment, Bruno Mtolo advanced yet another main reason, namely, that communists had infiltrated the ANC and were deceiving its members. According to Bruno Mtolo Umkhonto we Sizwe was one of the primary ways in which the ANC was deceived by the Communist Party and its leaders. Bruno Mtolo argued that, “The A.N.C. were under the impression that the Umkonto we Sizwe was an organisation belonging to them, whereas, in fact, it was an organisation belonging to the Communists.”
When Mr Berrange questioned why it was a problem that there were communist members of the ANC, Bruno Mtolo could not provide a clear answer, but insisted that he remained loyal to the aims and objectives of the ANC whilst these communists were working against the ANC for the advancement of their own agendas. Despite claiming to have attended intensive lectures on the idea of communism – including associated concepts and discourses such as historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, and others – for a number of years Bruno Mtolo proved unable to adequately explain any of the foundational concepts put to him by Mr Berrange.
For example when Bruno Mtolo was asked to explain what the difference between socialism and communism his response, in essence, was that under socialism the wealth of the country would be divided among the people but the capitalist system would remain intact; and under communism all the capitalist would have been “done away with” and all private property will be confiscated. In response to this answer Mr Berrange gave the following humours reply: “I am very much indebted to you! I sat for years on the treason trial, but this is the first time I have heard this definition.” Judge De Wet questioned the relevance of this line of questioning and Mr Berrange explained that the defence will argue that Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding attending Marxist study groups held by the Durban based Cell of the Communist Party was untrue.
It is worth quoting in full a particular passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and Bruno Mtolo concerning his disillusionment and decision to turn on his comrades and become a state witness, as it is highly illuminating of Bruno Mtolo’s self-perception at this time.
Q: In other words, what you felt about it was that, because of the fact that there were Communists working in the A.N.C. and you thought had a different ideological approach to the A.N.C. therefore the A.N.C. was being deceived?
A: Yes, that they were now actually deceiving them instead of assisting them.
Q: And that is one of your reasons for ultimately deciding within 24 hours of your arrest, that you were going to tell the police everything?
A: It is one of the reasons.
Q: Although, you still believed in the A.N.C. and its aims objects and in what it was doing?
A: The A.N.C. yes, without the Communists. I am still in agreement with that.
Q: And you were prepared, therefore, if your evidence is true, to betray those members of the A.N.C. for whom you had such a soft feeling, because they were being deceived, merely because of the fact that members of the Communist Party had infiltrated into the ranks of the A.N.C.?
A: As I am standing here, I am satisfied in my own mind, that I have not dropped or harmed the members of the A.N.C. As a matter of fact, I have done them a favour.
Bruno Mtolo claimed to have never raised his issues regarding communists and communism with the Regional Command in Durban or with Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, at Rivonia for fear of been seen as “a pimp” and killed.
In reference to the Freedom Charter, Bruno Mtolo claimed to agree with certain aspects of the document but also used it to draw a distinction between the ideology of the Communist Party and that of the ANC. Bruno Mtolo explained that “the difference now is that the policy of the A.N.C. – the way they looked at things – was that the wealth of the country would be divided, and shared by the people of the country – not the workers”. Hence, Bruno Mtolo once again exposed a very curious understanding of the ideology of socialism and the policies of the Communist Party, to which Mr Berrange stated: “You know, I am beginning to doubt whether you were even a member of the communist party.”
Mr Berrange stated, with a deep scepticism bordering on sarcasm, that the witness was claiming that the ultimate reason he disagreed with the policy of the Communist Party and its interpretation of the Freedom Charter was because he was “such a great respecter of private property”. The sarcasm in Mr Berrange’s tone stemmed from the fact that he had just got Bruno Mtolo to admit that he had previously been tried and sentenced for theft of private property on three separate occasions.
Attention then turns to Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, and what was said by him during the meeting with the Durban Regional High Command in August, 1962. Mr Berrange reads extracts from a written statement made by Nelson Mandela recalling everything he communicated to Bruno Mtolo and the other members of the Regional Command on this particular occasion. The particular issues at stake in this instance were the instructions given regarding communism as well as his statements regarding Eric Mtshali and the prospect of guerrilla warfare in the republic. During this sequence of evidence Bruno Mtolo informs the court that Nelson Mandela “is the only one of the leaders I have respect for”.
When questioned as to why this was the case Bruno Mtolo said that he did not believe that Nelson Mandela knew that his fellow leaders were neglecting their orders and deceiving their comrades. However, the only substance he could provide behind this accusation is that Nelson Mandela had provided the Durban Regional Command with money promptly after he was asked, whereas monies promised by other members of the High Command had not always been provided. At a later stage in the day, Bruno Mtolo admits that his only real complaint against the leaders who sat in front of him in the courtroom was that they had not supplied funds which they had promised to make available.
In addition to the meeting with Nelson Mandela, Mr Berrange also questions Bruno Mtolo intensely about the meeting he claimed to have attended between Harold Strachan and the Durban Regional Command concerning the decision to embark upon a campaign of Sabotage. Mr Berrange exposes that the timeline given by Bruno Mtolo in his examination-in-chief, claiming the acts of sabotage (numbered 74, 75, 76, and 77 in the exhibits) took place on Sunday 14th October, 1962, could not have been true. This was because court records showed that Nelson Mandela’s court case, which Bruno Mtolo claimed was the reason for committing these acts of sabotage in protest to, did not in fact begin until the 15th October, 1962.
Throughout the day’s proceedings Mr Berrange pushes the witness to concede that his memory was not good, or at least, certainly not as good as it was during his examination-in-chief. Eventually Bruno Mtolo, having been caught out in a number of contradictions concerning his statement on the acts of sabotages committed in December, 1962, complains that he is mentally drained from the day’s examination. As a result Judge De Wet decided to adjourn for the day and hold over further cross-examination until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1A/125b) (Vol.50/1A/126b) (Vol.50/1A/127b) (Vol.50/1A/128b) (Vol.50/1A/129b) (Vol.50/1B/130b) (Vol.50/1B/131b) (Vol.50/1B/132b) (Vol.50/1B/133b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 15 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
During this second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination Mr Berrange and Mr Bizos both question the witness. Mr Berrange continues with his line of inquiry and focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding his trip to meet with the High Command at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Bizos characteristically focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s experience in police custody and the circumstances in which he made his various statements.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was his inherent denial that his actions had in any way harmed the ANC and its non-communist membership. Bruno Mtolo goes so far as to suggest that by given evidence against the accused in this case he was actually doing a service for the ANC and the struggle against oppression in South Africa.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange continued.
The second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination began with Mr Berrange proving the court of a summary of the points discussed on the previous day and with Bruno Mtolo giving the court an apology for his tired mental state and lack of memory. Mr Berrange first returned his focus to the question of Harold Strachan’s meeting with, and instructions to, the Durban Regional Command. Mr Berrange refers to the court records of the previous day’s examination to reiterate the allegations Bruno Mtolo had made, regarding things said by Harold Strachan during his first meeting with the Regional Command, which he had failed to mention at all during his examination-in-chief.
Thereafter, Mr Berrange follows the same tactic in referring Bruno Mtolo to the events concerning Andrew Mlangeni and Brian Simani’s meeting with the Durban Regional Command during April/May, 1963. Once again in Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination he completely negated, or forgot, to mention a substantial amount of detail regarding this meeting as discussed in his examination-in-chief. In particular Bruno Mtolo made no mention of the complaints which he had told the court Andrew Mlangeni had been given by the Regional Command to take back to the High Command concerning, most importantly, the payment and safety of recruits. The point Mr Berrange was trying, with limited success, to get Bruno Mtolo to concede was that “as a human being, you can forget the most important things sometimes”. As a formidable state witness Bruno Mtolo was unwilling to concede even this general point to the defence.
Attention is then placed on Bruno Mtolo’s visit to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Berrange questions Bruno Mtolo briefly regarding his interactions with Walter Sisulu and Arthur Goldreich before spending more time on Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada. Referring to a statement made by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange puts it to Bruno Mtolo that at the time when he was talking to both the Port Elizabeth Man and Arthur Goldreich in the Thatched Cottage, Ahmed Kathrada was not involved and did not hear anything which was discussed. Reluctantly, Bruno Mtolo admits that this could have been the case. As Dr Yutar and the prosecution team were unable to locate the leaflet Bruno Mtolo alleged was drafted by Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, and stencilled for duplication by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange returns his focus to Walter Sisulu.
Bruno Mtolo acknowledged that the reason why Walter Sisulu had asked him where Solomon Mbanjwa was, upon his arrival at the Thatched Cottage, was because Solomon Mbanjwa was supposed to have come as a representative of the ANC. This was important because Bruno Mtolo was there as a representative of the MK which was a different organisation to the ANC.
Having made this point, Mr Berrange then went on to question Bruno Mtolo about acts of sabotage which were carried out in contravention of the High Command instructions not to risk harm to human beings. By framing the discussion in this way, Mr Berrange got Bruno Mtolo to admit that the endangering of goods train drivers’ lives and the bombing of the Nataller newspaper offices were examples of acts of sabotage carried out contrary to instructions.
Mr Berrange then reminds Bruno Mtolo that he told the court during his examination-in-chief that after the Rivonia arrests he had talked with Billy Nair and found that the news of the arrests had been hard on him. Mr Berrange told Bruno Mtolo that he found this “rather interesting” considering that at the time the Rivonia arrests took place Billy Nair had already been arrested for some. Bruno Mtolo tried to backtrack and reframe his answer in a number of ways but he had been caught in a clear lie by Mr Berrange. Unfortunately for the defence, the lies and contradictions exposed in Bruno Mtolo’s evidence during his cross-examination did not prevent his testimony from tying all of the accused (except for James Kantor and Rusty Bernstein) to acts of sabotage and the planning of, and recruiting of troops for, an armed overthrow of the apartheid government.
Eventually Dr Yutar submitted to the court the leaflet alleged to have been created by Govan Mbeki and Ahmed Kathrada (Exhibit R.10). Mr Berrange took time to read the document over before deciding not to spend time dealing with it further. Instead, Mr Berrange asks Bruno Mtolo about his evidence regarding the Chief at Bergville’s involvement in acts of sabotage and storing weapons for guerrilla warfare. Once again, Bruno Mtolo claimed that, even though this Chief was not a communist, he felt that betraying him in his evidence was a service in benefit of the ANC.
Mr Berrange informs the court that this temporarily concluded his cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. However, before stepping down, Mr Berrange makes two statements to the court. The first statement was that Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein, would deny that he had ever taken a message from the High Command to the Durban Regional Command. The second statement concerned the difficulties the defence attorney, Mr Joffe, had faced over the vacation period in interviewing certain people in regard to matters that had been testified to by Bruno Mtolo. As many of these people were themselves standing trial at the time Mr Joffe was unable, on the orders of their attorney, to get any information regarding the facts testified to by Bruno Mtolo until such time as these people had been tired and either convicted or acquitted. Therefore, Mr Berrange said that the defence were likely to submit an application to the court to have Bruno Mtolo recalled at a later stage. Judge De Wet did not object to this but did say, “I take it you will have to take your chance of his being found if you want to recall him”.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Bizos begins his cross-examination with a characteristic focus on the witness’s identification of certain accused during police interrogations as a 90 day detainee. Particular focus is placed at first on Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Mr Bizos leads Bruno Mtolo to admit that in his mind he was eager to give the police as much detail in his statement as possible in order to save both the ANC and himself.
Mr Bizos asks only a few questions regarding Bruno Mtolo’s arrest and interaction with the police before court and further cross-examination of this witness is reserved.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1B/134b) (Vol.50/2A/135b) (Vol.50/2A/136b) (Vol.50/2A/137b) (Vol.50/2A/138b) (Vol.50/2A/139b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 16th January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
During this second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination Mr Berrange and Mr Bizos both question the witness. Mr Berrange continues with his line of inquiry and focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding his trip to meet with the High Command at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Bizos characteristically focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s experience in police custody and the circumstances in which he made his various statements.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was his inherent denial that his actions had in any way harmed the ANC and its non-communist membership. Bruno Mtolo goes so far as to suggest that by given evidence against the accused in this case he was actually doing a service for the ANC and the struggle against oppression in South Africa.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange continued.
The second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination began with Mr Berrange proving the court of a summary of the points discussed on the previous day and with Bruno Mtolo giving the court an apology for his tired mental state and lack of memory. Mr Berrange first returned his focus to the question of Harold Strachan’s meeting with, and instructions to, the Durban Regional Command. Mr Berrange refers to the court records of the previous day’s examination to reiterate the allegations Bruno Mtolo had made, regarding things said by Harold Strachan during his first meeting with the Regional Command, which he had failed to mention at all during his examination-in-chief.
Thereafter, Mr Berrange follows the same tactic in referring Bruno Mtolo to the events concerning Andrew Mlangeni and Brian Simani’s meeting with the Durban Regional Command during April/May, 1963. Once again in Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination he completely negated, or forgot, to mention a substantial amount of detail regarding this meeting as discussed in his examination-in-chief. In particular Bruno Mtolo made no mention of the complaints which he had told the court Andrew Mlangeni had been given by the Regional Command to take back to the High Command concerning, most importantly, the payment and safety of recruits. The point Mr Berrange was trying, with limited success, to get Bruno Mtolo to concede was that “as a human being, you can forget the most important things sometimes”. As a formidable state witness Bruno Mtolo was unwilling to concede even this general point to the defence.
Attention is then placed on Bruno Mtolo’s visit to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Berrange questions Bruno Mtolo briefly regarding his interactions with Walter Sisulu and Arthur Goldreich before spending more time on Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada. Referring to a statement made by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange puts it to Bruno Mtolo that at the time when he was talking to both the Port Elizabeth Man and Arthur Goldreich in the Thatched Cottage, Ahmed Kathrada was not involved and did not hear anything which was discussed. Reluctantly, Bruno Mtolo admits that this could have been the case. As Dr Yutar and the prosecution team were unable to locate the leaflet Bruno Mtolo alleged was drafted by Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, and stencilled for duplication by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange returns his focus to Walter Sisulu.
Bruno Mtolo acknowledged that the reason why Walter Sisulu had asked him where Solomon Mbanjwa was, upon his arrival at the Thatched Cottage, was because Solomon Mbanjwa was supposed to have come as a representative of the ANC. This was important because Bruno Mtolo was there as a representative of the MK which was a different organisation to the ANC.
Having made this point, Mr Berrange then went on to question Bruno Mtolo about acts of sabotage which were carried out in contravention of the High Command instructions not to risk harm to human beings. By framing the discussion in this way, Mr Berrange got Bruno Mtolo to admit that the endangering of goods train drivers’ lives and the bombing of the Nataller newspaper offices were examples of acts of sabotage carried out contrary to instructions.
Mr Berrange then reminds Bruno Mtolo that he told the court during his examination-in-chief that after the Rivonia arrests he had talked with Billy Nair and found that the news of the arrests had been hard on him. Mr Berrange told Bruno Mtolo that he found this “rather interesting” considering that at the time the Rivonia arrests took place Billy Nair had already been arrested for some. Bruno Mtolo tried to backtrack and reframe his answer in a number of ways but he had been caught in a clear lie by Mr Berrange. Unfortunately for the defence, the lies and contradictions exposed in Bruno Mtolo’s evidence during his cross-examination did not prevent his testimony from tying all of the accused (except for James Kantor and Rusty Bernstein) to acts of sabotage and the planning of, and recruiting of troops for, an armed overthrow of the apartheid government.
Eventually Dr Yutar submitted to the court the leaflet alleged to have been created by Govan Mbeki and Ahmed Kathrada (Exhibit R.10). Mr Berrange took time to read the document over before deciding not to spend time dealing with it further. Instead, Mr Berrange asks Bruno Mtolo about his evidence regarding the Chief at Bergville’s involvement in acts of sabotage and storing weapons for guerrilla warfare. Once again, Bruno Mtolo claimed that, even though this Chief was not a communist, he felt that betraying him in his evidence was a service in benefit of the ANC.
Mr Berrange informs the court that this temporarily concluded his cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. However, before stepping down, Mr Berrange makes two statements to the court. The first statement was that Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein, would deny that he had ever taken a message from the High Command to the Durban Regional Command. The second statement concerned the difficulties the defence attorney, Mr Joffe, had faced over the vacation period in interviewing certain people in regard to matters that had been testified to by Bruno Mtolo. As many of these people were themselves standing trial at the time Mr Joffe was unable, on the orders of their attorney, to get any information regarding the facts testified to by Bruno Mtolo until such time as these people had been tired and either convicted or acquitted. Therefore, Mr Berrange said that the defence were likely to submit an application to the court to have Bruno Mtolo recalled at a later stage. Judge De Wet did not object to this but did say, “I take it you will have to take your chance of his being found if you want to recall him”.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Bizos begins his cross-examination with a characteristic focus on the witness’s identification of certain accused during police interrogations as a 90 day detainee. Particular focus is placed at first on Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Mr Bizos leads Bruno Mtolo to admit that in his mind he was eager to give the police as much detail in his statement as possible in order to save both the ANC and himself.
Mr Bizos asks only a few questions regarding Bruno Mtolo’s arrest and interaction with the police before court and further cross-examination of this witness is reserved.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1B/134b) (Vol.50/2A/135b) (Vol.50/2A/136b) (Vol.50/2A/137b) (Vol.50/2A/138b) (Vol.50/2A/139b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 16th January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
During this second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination Mr Berrange and Mr Bizos both question the witness. Mr Berrange continues with his line of inquiry and focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding his trip to meet with the High Command at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Bizos characteristically focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s experience in police custody and the circumstances in which he made his various statements.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was his inherent denial that his actions had in any way harmed the ANC and its non-communist membership. Bruno Mtolo goes so far as to suggest that by given evidence against the accused in this case he was actually doing a service for the ANC and the struggle against oppression in South Africa.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange continued.
The second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination began with Mr Berrange proving the court of a summary of the points discussed on the previous day and with Bruno Mtolo giving the court an apology for his tired mental state and lack of memory. Mr Berrange first returned his focus to the question of Harold Strachan’s meeting with, and instructions to, the Durban Regional Command. Mr Berrange refers to the court records of the previous day’s examination to reiterate the allegations Bruno Mtolo had made, regarding things said by Harold Strachan during his first meeting with the Regional Command, which he had failed to mention at all during his examination-in-chief.
Thereafter, Mr Berrange follows the same tactic in referring Bruno Mtolo to the events concerning Andrew Mlangeni and Brian Simani’s meeting with the Durban Regional Command during April/May, 1963. Once again in Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination he completely negated, or forgot, to mention a substantial amount of detail regarding this meeting as discussed in his examination-in-chief. In particular Bruno Mtolo made no mention of the complaints which he had told the court Andrew Mlangeni had been given by the Regional Command to take back to the High Command concerning, most importantly, the payment and safety of recruits. The point Mr Berrange was trying, with limited success, to get Bruno Mtolo to concede was that “as a human being, you can forget the most important things sometimes”. As a formidable state witness Bruno Mtolo was unwilling to concede even this general point to the defence.
Attention is then placed on Bruno Mtolo’s visit to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Berrange questions Bruno Mtolo briefly regarding his interactions with Walter Sisulu and Arthur Goldreich before spending more time on Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada. Referring to a statement made by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange puts it to Bruno Mtolo that at the time when he was talking to both the Port Elizabeth Man and Arthur Goldreich in the Thatched Cottage, Ahmed Kathrada was not involved and did not hear anything which was discussed. Reluctantly, Bruno Mtolo admits that this could have been the case. As Dr Yutar and the prosecution team were unable to locate the leaflet Bruno Mtolo alleged was drafted by Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, and stencilled for duplication by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange returns his focus to Walter Sisulu.
Bruno Mtolo acknowledged that the reason why Walter Sisulu had asked him where Solomon Mbanjwa was, upon his arrival at the Thatched Cottage, was because Solomon Mbanjwa was supposed to have come as a representative of the ANC. This was important because Bruno Mtolo was there as a representative of the MK which was a different organisation to the ANC.
Having made this point, Mr Berrange then went on to question Bruno Mtolo about acts of sabotage which were carried out in contravention of the High Command instructions not to risk harm to human beings. By framing the discussion in this way, Mr Berrange got Bruno Mtolo to admit that the endangering of goods train drivers’ lives and the bombing of the Nataller newspaper offices were examples of acts of sabotage carried out contrary to instructions.
Mr Berrange then reminds Bruno Mtolo that he told the court during his examination-in-chief that after the Rivonia arrests he had talked with Billy Nair and found that the news of the arrests had been hard on him. Mr Berrange told Bruno Mtolo that he found this “rather interesting” considering that at the time the Rivonia arrests took place Billy Nair had already been arrested for some. Bruno Mtolo tried to backtrack and reframe his answer in a number of ways but he had been caught in a clear lie by Mr Berrange. Unfortunately for the defence, the lies and contradictions exposed in Bruno Mtolo’s evidence during his cross-examination did not prevent his testimony from tying all of the accused (except for James Kantor and Rusty Bernstein) to acts of sabotage and the planning of, and recruiting of troops for, an armed overthrow of the apartheid government.
Eventually Dr Yutar submitted to the court the leaflet alleged to have been created by Govan Mbeki and Ahmed Kathrada (Exhibit R.10). Mr Berrange took time to read the document over before deciding not to spend time dealing with it further. Instead, Mr Berrange asks Bruno Mtolo about his evidence regarding the Chief at Bergville’s involvement in acts of sabotage and storing weapons for guerrilla warfare. Once again, Bruno Mtolo claimed that, even though this Chief was not a communist, he felt that betraying him in his evidence was a service in benefit of the ANC.
Mr Berrange informs the court that this temporarily concluded his cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. However, before stepping down, Mr Berrange makes two statements to the court. The first statement was that Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein, would deny that he had ever taken a message from the High Command to the Durban Regional Command. The second statement concerned the difficulties the defence attorney, Mr Joffe, had faced over the vacation period in interviewing certain people in regard to matters that had been testified to by Bruno Mtolo. As many of these people were themselves standing trial at the time Mr Joffe was unable, on the orders of their attorney, to get any information regarding the facts testified to by Bruno Mtolo until such time as these people had been tired and either convicted or acquitted. Therefore, Mr Berrange said that the defence were likely to submit an application to the court to have Bruno Mtolo recalled at a later stage. Judge De Wet did not object to this but did say, “I take it you will have to take your chance of his being found if you want to recall him”.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Bizos begins his cross-examination with a characteristic focus on the witness’s identification of certain accused during police interrogations as a 90 day detainee. Particular focus is placed at first on Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Mr Bizos leads Bruno Mtolo to admit that in his mind he was eager to give the police as much detail in his statement as possible in order to save both the ANC and himself.
Mr Bizos asks only a few questions regarding Bruno Mtolo’s arrest and interaction with the police before court and further cross-examination of this witness is reserved.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1B/134b) (Vol.50/2A/135b) (Vol.50/2A/136b) (Vol.50/2A/137b) (Vol.50/2A/138b) (Vol.50/2A/139b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 16th January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
During this second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination Mr Berrange and Mr Bizos both question the witness. Mr Berrange continues with his line of inquiry and focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding his trip to meet with the High Command at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Bizos characteristically focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s experience in police custody and the circumstances in which he made his various statements.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was his inherent denial that his actions had in any way harmed the ANC and its non-communist membership. Bruno Mtolo goes so far as to suggest that by given evidence against the accused in this case he was actually doing a service for the ANC and the struggle against oppression in South Africa.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange continued.
The second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination began with Mr Berrange proving the court of a summary of the points discussed on the previous day and with Bruno Mtolo giving the court an apology for his tired mental state and lack of memory. Mr Berrange first returned his focus to the question of Harold Strachan’s meeting with, and instructions to, the Durban Regional Command. Mr Berrange refers to the court records of the previous day’s examination to reiterate the allegations Bruno Mtolo had made, regarding things said by Harold Strachan during his first meeting with the Regional Command, which he had failed to mention at all during his examination-in-chief.
Thereafter, Mr Berrange follows the same tactic in referring Bruno Mtolo to the events concerning Andrew Mlangeni and Brian Simani’s meeting with the Durban Regional Command during April/May, 1963. Once again in Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination he completely negated, or forgot, to mention a substantial amount of detail regarding this meeting as discussed in his examination-in-chief. In particular Bruno Mtolo made no mention of the complaints which he had told the court Andrew Mlangeni had been given by the Regional Command to take back to the High Command concerning, most importantly, the payment and safety of recruits. The point Mr Berrange was trying, with limited success, to get Bruno Mtolo to concede was that “as a human being, you can forget the most important things sometimes”. As a formidable state witness Bruno Mtolo was unwilling to concede even this general point to the defence.
Attention is then placed on Bruno Mtolo’s visit to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Berrange questions Bruno Mtolo briefly regarding his interactions with Walter Sisulu and Arthur Goldreich before spending more time on Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada. Referring to a statement made by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange puts it to Bruno Mtolo that at the time when he was talking to both the Port Elizabeth Man and Arthur Goldreich in the Thatched Cottage, Ahmed Kathrada was not involved and did not hear anything which was discussed. Reluctantly, Bruno Mtolo admits that this could have been the case. As Dr Yutar and the prosecution team were unable to locate the leaflet Bruno Mtolo alleged was drafted by Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, and stencilled for duplication by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange returns his focus to Walter Sisulu.
Bruno Mtolo acknowledged that the reason why Walter Sisulu had asked him where Solomon Mbanjwa was, upon his arrival at the Thatched Cottage, was because Solomon Mbanjwa was supposed to have come as a representative of the ANC. This was important because Bruno Mtolo was there as a representative of the MK which was a different organisation to the ANC.
Having made this point, Mr Berrange then went on to question Bruno Mtolo about acts of sabotage which were carried out in contravention of the High Command instructions not to risk harm to human beings. By framing the discussion in this way, Mr Berrange got Bruno Mtolo to admit that the endangering of goods train drivers’ lives and the bombing of the Nataller newspaper offices were examples of acts of sabotage carried out contrary to instructions.
Mr Berrange then reminds Bruno Mtolo that he told the court during his examination-in-chief that after the Rivonia arrests he had talked with Billy Nair and found that the news of the arrests had been hard on him. Mr Berrange told Bruno Mtolo that he found this “rather interesting” considering that at the time the Rivonia arrests took place Billy Nair had already been arrested for some. Bruno Mtolo tried to backtrack and reframe his answer in a number of ways but he had been caught in a clear lie by Mr Berrange. Unfortunately for the defence, the lies and contradictions exposed in Bruno Mtolo’s evidence during his cross-examination did not prevent his testimony from tying all of the accused (except for James Kantor and Rusty Bernstein) to acts of sabotage and the planning of, and recruiting of troops for, an armed overthrow of the apartheid government.
Eventually Dr Yutar submitted to the court the leaflet alleged to have been created by Govan Mbeki and Ahmed Kathrada (Exhibit R.10). Mr Berrange took time to read the document over before deciding not to spend time dealing with it further. Instead, Mr Berrange asks Bruno Mtolo about his evidence regarding the Chief at Bergville’s involvement in acts of sabotage and storing weapons for guerrilla warfare. Once again, Bruno Mtolo claimed that, even though this Chief was not a communist, he felt that betraying him in his evidence was a service in benefit of the ANC.
Mr Berrange informs the court that this temporarily concluded his cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. However, before stepping down, Mr Berrange makes two statements to the court. The first statement was that Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein, would deny that he had ever taken a message from the High Command to the Durban Regional Command. The second statement concerned the difficulties the defence attorney, Mr Joffe, had faced over the vacation period in interviewing certain people in regard to matters that had been testified to by Bruno Mtolo. As many of these people were themselves standing trial at the time Mr Joffe was unable, on the orders of their attorney, to get any information regarding the facts testified to by Bruno Mtolo until such time as these people had been tired and either convicted or acquitted. Therefore, Mr Berrange said that the defence were likely to submit an application to the court to have Bruno Mtolo recalled at a later stage. Judge De Wet did not object to this but did say, “I take it you will have to take your chance of his being found if you want to recall him”.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Bizos begins his cross-examination with a characteristic focus on the witness’s identification of certain accused during police interrogations as a 90 day detainee. Particular focus is placed at first on Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Mr Bizos leads Bruno Mtolo to admit that in his mind he was eager to give the police as much detail in his statement as possible in order to save both the ANC and himself.
Mr Bizos asks only a few questions regarding Bruno Mtolo’s arrest and interaction with the police before court and further cross-examination of this witness is reserved.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1B/134b) (Vol.50/2A/135b) (Vol.50/2A/136b) (Vol.50/2A/137b) (Vol.50/2A/138b) (Vol.50/2A/139b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 16th January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
During this second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination Mr Berrange and Mr Bizos both question the witness. Mr Berrange continues with his line of inquiry and focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding his trip to meet with the High Command at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Bizos characteristically focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s experience in police custody and the circumstances in which he made his various statements.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was his inherent denial that his actions had in any way harmed the ANC and its non-communist membership. Bruno Mtolo goes so far as to suggest that by given evidence against the accused in this case he was actually doing a service for the ANC and the struggle against oppression in South Africa.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange continued.
The second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination began with Mr Berrange proving the court of a summary of the points discussed on the previous day and with Bruno Mtolo giving the court an apology for his tired mental state and lack of memory. Mr Berrange first returned his focus to the question of Harold Strachan’s meeting with, and instructions to, the Durban Regional Command. Mr Berrange refers to the court records of the previous day’s examination to reiterate the allegations Bruno Mtolo had made, regarding things said by Harold Strachan during his first meeting with the Regional Command, which he had failed to mention at all during his examination-in-chief.
Thereafter, Mr Berrange follows the same tactic in referring Bruno Mtolo to the events concerning Andrew Mlangeni and Brian Simani’s meeting with the Durban Regional Command during April/May, 1963. Once again in Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination he completely negated, or forgot, to mention a substantial amount of detail regarding this meeting as discussed in his examination-in-chief. In particular Bruno Mtolo made no mention of the complaints which he had told the court Andrew Mlangeni had been given by the Regional Command to take back to the High Command concerning, most importantly, the payment and safety of recruits. The point Mr Berrange was trying, with limited success, to get Bruno Mtolo to concede was that “as a human being, you can forget the most important things sometimes”. As a formidable state witness Bruno Mtolo was unwilling to concede even this general point to the defence.
Attention is then placed on Bruno Mtolo’s visit to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Berrange questions Bruno Mtolo briefly regarding his interactions with Walter Sisulu and Arthur Goldreich before spending more time on Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada. Referring to a statement made by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange puts it to Bruno Mtolo that at the time when he was talking to both the Port Elizabeth Man and Arthur Goldreich in the Thatched Cottage, Ahmed Kathrada was not involved and did not hear anything which was discussed. Reluctantly, Bruno Mtolo admits that this could have been the case. As Dr Yutar and the prosecution team were unable to locate the leaflet Bruno Mtolo alleged was drafted by Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, and stencilled for duplication by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange returns his focus to Walter Sisulu.
Bruno Mtolo acknowledged that the reason why Walter Sisulu had asked him where Solomon Mbanjwa was, upon his arrival at the Thatched Cottage, was because Solomon Mbanjwa was supposed to have come as a representative of the ANC. This was important because Bruno Mtolo was there as a representative of the MK which was a different organisation to the ANC.
Having made this point, Mr Berrange then went on to question Bruno Mtolo about acts of sabotage which were carried out in contravention of the High Command instructions not to risk harm to human beings. By framing the discussion in this way, Mr Berrange got Bruno Mtolo to admit that the endangering of goods train drivers’ lives and the bombing of the Nataller newspaper offices were examples of acts of sabotage carried out contrary to instructions.
Mr Berrange then reminds Bruno Mtolo that he told the court during his examination-in-chief that after the Rivonia arrests he had talked with Billy Nair and found that the news of the arrests had been hard on him. Mr Berrange told Bruno Mtolo that he found this “rather interesting” considering that at the time the Rivonia arrests took place Billy Nair had already been arrested for some. Bruno Mtolo tried to backtrack and reframe his answer in a number of ways but he had been caught in a clear lie by Mr Berrange. Unfortunately for the defence, the lies and contradictions exposed in Bruno Mtolo’s evidence during his cross-examination did not prevent his testimony from tying all of the accused (except for James Kantor and Rusty Bernstein) to acts of sabotage and the planning of, and recruiting of troops for, an armed overthrow of the apartheid government.
Eventually Dr Yutar submitted to the court the leaflet alleged to have been created by Govan Mbeki and Ahmed Kathrada (Exhibit R.10). Mr Berrange took time to read the document over before deciding not to spend time dealing with it further. Instead, Mr Berrange asks Bruno Mtolo about his evidence regarding the Chief at Bergville’s involvement in acts of sabotage and storing weapons for guerrilla warfare. Once again, Bruno Mtolo claimed that, even though this Chief was not a communist, he felt that betraying him in his evidence was a service in benefit of the ANC.
Mr Berrange informs the court that this temporarily concluded his cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. However, before stepping down, Mr Berrange makes two statements to the court. The first statement was that Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein, would deny that he had ever taken a message from the High Command to the Durban Regional Command. The second statement concerned the difficulties the defence attorney, Mr Joffe, had faced over the vacation period in interviewing certain people in regard to matters that had been testified to by Bruno Mtolo. As many of these people were themselves standing trial at the time Mr Joffe was unable, on the orders of their attorney, to get any information regarding the facts testified to by Bruno Mtolo until such time as these people had been tired and either convicted or acquitted. Therefore, Mr Berrange said that the defence were likely to submit an application to the court to have Bruno Mtolo recalled at a later stage. Judge De Wet did not object to this but did say, “I take it you will have to take your chance of his being found if you want to recall him”.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Bizos begins his cross-examination with a characteristic focus on the witness’s identification of certain accused during police interrogations as a 90 day detainee. Particular focus is placed at first on Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Mr Bizos leads Bruno Mtolo to admit that in his mind he was eager to give the police as much detail in his statement as possible in order to save both the ANC and himself.
Mr Bizos asks only a few questions regarding Bruno Mtolo’s arrest and interaction with the police before court and further cross-examination of this witness is reserved.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1B/134b) (Vol.50/2A/135b) (Vol.50/2A/136b) (Vol.50/2A/137b) (Vol.50/2A/138b) (Vol.50/2A/139b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 16th January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
During this second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination Mr Berrange and Mr Bizos both question the witness. Mr Berrange continues with his line of inquiry and focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding his trip to meet with the High Command at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Bizos characteristically focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s experience in police custody and the circumstances in which he made his various statements.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was his inherent denial that his actions had in any way harmed the ANC and its non-communist membership. Bruno Mtolo goes so far as to suggest that by given evidence against the accused in this case he was actually doing a service for the ANC and the struggle against oppression in South Africa.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange continued.
The second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination began with Mr Berrange proving the court of a summary of the points discussed on the previous day and with Bruno Mtolo giving the court an apology for his tired mental state and lack of memory. Mr Berrange first returned his focus to the question of Harold Strachan’s meeting with, and instructions to, the Durban Regional Command. Mr Berrange refers to the court records of the previous day’s examination to reiterate the allegations Bruno Mtolo had made, regarding things said by Harold Strachan during his first meeting with the Regional Command, which he had failed to mention at all during his examination-in-chief.
Thereafter, Mr Berrange follows the same tactic in referring Bruno Mtolo to the events concerning Andrew Mlangeni and Brian Simani’s meeting with the Durban Regional Command during April/May, 1963. Once again in Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination he completely negated, or forgot, to mention a substantial amount of detail regarding this meeting as discussed in his examination-in-chief. In particular Bruno Mtolo made no mention of the complaints which he had told the court Andrew Mlangeni had been given by the Regional Command to take back to the High Command concerning, most importantly, the payment and safety of recruits. The point Mr Berrange was trying, with limited success, to get Bruno Mtolo to concede was that “as a human being, you can forget the most important things sometimes”. As a formidable state witness Bruno Mtolo was unwilling to concede even this general point to the defence.
Attention is then placed on Bruno Mtolo’s visit to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Berrange questions Bruno Mtolo briefly regarding his interactions with Walter Sisulu and Arthur Goldreich before spending more time on Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada. Referring to a statement made by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange puts it to Bruno Mtolo that at the time when he was talking to both the Port Elizabeth Man and Arthur Goldreich in the Thatched Cottage, Ahmed Kathrada was not involved and did not hear anything which was discussed. Reluctantly, Bruno Mtolo admits that this could have been the case. As Dr Yutar and the prosecution team were unable to locate the leaflet Bruno Mtolo alleged was drafted by Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, and stencilled for duplication by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange returns his focus to Walter Sisulu.
Bruno Mtolo acknowledged that the reason why Walter Sisulu had asked him where Solomon Mbanjwa was, upon his arrival at the Thatched Cottage, was because Solomon Mbanjwa was supposed to have come as a representative of the ANC. This was important because Bruno Mtolo was there as a representative of the MK which was a different organisation to the ANC.
Having made this point, Mr Berrange then went on to question Bruno Mtolo about acts of sabotage which were carried out in contravention of the High Command instructions not to risk harm to human beings. By framing the discussion in this way, Mr Berrange got Bruno Mtolo to admit that the endangering of goods train drivers’ lives and the bombing of the Nataller newspaper offices were examples of acts of sabotage carried out contrary to instructions.
Mr Berrange then reminds Bruno Mtolo that he told the court during his examination-in-chief that after the Rivonia arrests he had talked with Billy Nair and found that the news of the arrests had been hard on him. Mr Berrange told Bruno Mtolo that he found this “rather interesting” considering that at the time the Rivonia arrests took place Billy Nair had already been arrested for some. Bruno Mtolo tried to backtrack and reframe his answer in a number of ways but he had been caught in a clear lie by Mr Berrange. Unfortunately for the defence, the lies and contradictions exposed in Bruno Mtolo’s evidence during his cross-examination did not prevent his testimony from tying all of the accused (except for James Kantor and Rusty Bernstein) to acts of sabotage and the planning of, and recruiting of troops for, an armed overthrow of the apartheid government.
Eventually Dr Yutar submitted to the court the leaflet alleged to have been created by Govan Mbeki and Ahmed Kathrada (Exhibit R.10). Mr Berrange took time to read the document over before deciding not to spend time dealing with it further. Instead, Mr Berrange asks Bruno Mtolo about his evidence regarding the Chief at Bergville’s involvement in acts of sabotage and storing weapons for guerrilla warfare. Once again, Bruno Mtolo claimed that, even though this Chief was not a communist, he felt that betraying him in his evidence was a service in benefit of the ANC.
Mr Berrange informs the court that this temporarily concluded his cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. However, before stepping down, Mr Berrange makes two statements to the court. The first statement was that Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein, would deny that he had ever taken a message from the High Command to the Durban Regional Command. The second statement concerned the difficulties the defence attorney, Mr Joffe, had faced over the vacation period in interviewing certain people in regard to matters that had been testified to by Bruno Mtolo. As many of these people were themselves standing trial at the time Mr Joffe was unable, on the orders of their attorney, to get any information regarding the facts testified to by Bruno Mtolo until such time as these people had been tired and either convicted or acquitted. Therefore, Mr Berrange said that the defence were likely to submit an application to the court to have Bruno Mtolo recalled at a later stage. Judge De Wet did not object to this but did say, “I take it you will have to take your chance of his being found if you want to recall him”.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Bizos begins his cross-examination with a characteristic focus on the witness’s identification of certain accused during police interrogations as a 90 day detainee. Particular focus is placed at first on Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Mr Bizos leads Bruno Mtolo to admit that in his mind he was eager to give the police as much detail in his statement as possible in order to save both the ANC and himself.
Mr Bizos asks only a few questions regarding Bruno Mtolo’s arrest and interaction with the police before court and further cross-examination of this witness is reserved.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1B/134b) (Vol.50/2A/135b) (Vol.50/2A/136b) (Vol.50/2A/137b) (Vol.50/2A/138b) (Vol.50/2A/139b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 16th January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
During this second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination Mr Berrange and Mr Bizos both question the witness. Mr Berrange continues with his line of inquiry and focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding his trip to meet with the High Command at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Bizos characteristically focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s experience in police custody and the circumstances in which he made his various statements.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was his inherent denial that his actions had in any way harmed the ANC and its non-communist membership. Bruno Mtolo goes so far as to suggest that by given evidence against the accused in this case he was actually doing a service for the ANC and the struggle against oppression in South Africa.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange continued.
The second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination began with Mr Berrange proving the court of a summary of the points discussed on the previous day and with Bruno Mtolo giving the court an apology for his tired mental state and lack of memory. Mr Berrange first returned his focus to the question of Harold Strachan’s meeting with, and instructions to, the Durban Regional Command. Mr Berrange refers to the court records of the previous day’s examination to reiterate the allegations Bruno Mtolo had made, regarding things said by Harold Strachan during his first meeting with the Regional Command, which he had failed to mention at all during his examination-in-chief.
Thereafter, Mr Berrange follows the same tactic in referring Bruno Mtolo to the events concerning Andrew Mlangeni and Brian Simani’s meeting with the Durban Regional Command during April/May, 1963. Once again in Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination he completely negated, or forgot, to mention a substantial amount of detail regarding this meeting as discussed in his examination-in-chief. In particular Bruno Mtolo made no mention of the complaints which he had told the court Andrew Mlangeni had been given by the Regional Command to take back to the High Command concerning, most importantly, the payment and safety of recruits. The point Mr Berrange was trying, with limited success, to get Bruno Mtolo to concede was that “as a human being, you can forget the most important things sometimes”. As a formidable state witness Bruno Mtolo was unwilling to concede even this general point to the defence.
Attention is then placed on Bruno Mtolo’s visit to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Berrange questions Bruno Mtolo briefly regarding his interactions with Walter Sisulu and Arthur Goldreich before spending more time on Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada. Referring to a statement made by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange puts it to Bruno Mtolo that at the time when he was talking to both the Port Elizabeth Man and Arthur Goldreich in the Thatched Cottage, Ahmed Kathrada was not involved and did not hear anything which was discussed. Reluctantly, Bruno Mtolo admits that this could have been the case. As Dr Yutar and the prosecution team were unable to locate the leaflet Bruno Mtolo alleged was drafted by Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, and stencilled for duplication by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange returns his focus to Walter Sisulu.
Bruno Mtolo acknowledged that the reason why Walter Sisulu had asked him where Solomon Mbanjwa was, upon his arrival at the Thatched Cottage, was because Solomon Mbanjwa was supposed to have come as a representative of the ANC. This was important because Bruno Mtolo was there as a representative of the MK which was a different organisation to the ANC.
Having made this point, Mr Berrange then went on to question Bruno Mtolo about acts of sabotage which were carried out in contravention of the High Command instructions not to risk harm to human beings. By framing the discussion in this way, Mr Berrange got Bruno Mtolo to admit that the endangering of goods train drivers’ lives and the bombing of the Nataller newspaper offices were examples of acts of sabotage carried out contrary to instructions.
Mr Berrange then reminds Bruno Mtolo that he told the court during his examination-in-chief that after the Rivonia arrests he had talked with Billy Nair and found that the news of the arrests had been hard on him. Mr Berrange told Bruno Mtolo that he found this “rather interesting” considering that at the time the Rivonia arrests took place Billy Nair had already been arrested for some. Bruno Mtolo tried to backtrack and reframe his answer in a number of ways but he had been caught in a clear lie by Mr Berrange. Unfortunately for the defence, the lies and contradictions exposed in Bruno Mtolo’s evidence during his cross-examination did not prevent his testimony from tying all of the accused (except for James Kantor and Rusty Bernstein) to acts of sabotage and the planning of, and recruiting of troops for, an armed overthrow of the apartheid government.
Eventually Dr Yutar submitted to the court the leaflet alleged to have been created by Govan Mbeki and Ahmed Kathrada (Exhibit R.10). Mr Berrange took time to read the document over before deciding not to spend time dealing with it further. Instead, Mr Berrange asks Bruno Mtolo about his evidence regarding the Chief at Bergville’s involvement in acts of sabotage and storing weapons for guerrilla warfare. Once again, Bruno Mtolo claimed that, even though this Chief was not a communist, he felt that betraying him in his evidence was a service in benefit of the ANC.
Mr Berrange informs the court that this temporarily concluded his cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. However, before stepping down, Mr Berrange makes two statements to the court. The first statement was that Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein, would deny that he had ever taken a message from the High Command to the Durban Regional Command. The second statement concerned the difficulties the defence attorney, Mr Joffe, had faced over the vacation period in interviewing certain people in regard to matters that had been testified to by Bruno Mtolo. As many of these people were themselves standing trial at the time Mr Joffe was unable, on the orders of their attorney, to get any information regarding the facts testified to by Bruno Mtolo until such time as these people had been tired and either convicted or acquitted. Therefore, Mr Berrange said that the defence were likely to submit an application to the court to have Bruno Mtolo recalled at a later stage. Judge De Wet did not object to this but did say, “I take it you will have to take your chance of his being found if you want to recall him”.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Bizos begins his cross-examination with a characteristic focus on the witness’s identification of certain accused during police interrogations as a 90 day detainee. Particular focus is placed at first on Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Mr Bizos leads Bruno Mtolo to admit that in his mind he was eager to give the police as much detail in his statement as possible in order to save both the ANC and himself.
Mr Bizos asks only a few questions regarding Bruno Mtolo’s arrest and interaction with the police before court and further cross-examination of this witness is reserved.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1B/134b) (Vol.50/2A/135b) (Vol.50/2A/136b) (Vol.50/2A/137b) (Vol.50/2A/138b) (Vol.50/2A/139b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 16th January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
During this second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination Mr Berrange and Mr Bizos both question the witness. Mr Berrange continues with his line of inquiry and focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding his trip to meet with the High Command at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Bizos characteristically focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s experience in police custody and the circumstances in which he made his various statements.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was his inherent denial that his actions had in any way harmed the ANC and its non-communist membership. Bruno Mtolo goes so far as to suggest that by given evidence against the accused in this case he was actually doing a service for the ANC and the struggle against oppression in South Africa.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange continued.
The second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination began with Mr Berrange proving the court of a summary of the points discussed on the previous day and with Bruno Mtolo giving the court an apology for his tired mental state and lack of memory. Mr Berrange first returned his focus to the question of Harold Strachan’s meeting with, and instructions to, the Durban Regional Command. Mr Berrange refers to the court records of the previous day’s examination to reiterate the allegations Bruno Mtolo had made, regarding things said by Harold Strachan during his first meeting with the Regional Command, which he had failed to mention at all during his examination-in-chief.
Thereafter, Mr Berrange follows the same tactic in referring Bruno Mtolo to the events concerning Andrew Mlangeni and Brian Simani’s meeting with the Durban Regional Command during April/May, 1963. Once again in Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination he completely negated, or forgot, to mention a substantial amount of detail regarding this meeting as discussed in his examination-in-chief. In particular Bruno Mtolo made no mention of the complaints which he had told the court Andrew Mlangeni had been given by the Regional Command to take back to the High Command concerning, most importantly, the payment and safety of recruits. The point Mr Berrange was trying, with limited success, to get Bruno Mtolo to concede was that “as a human being, you can forget the most important things sometimes”. As a formidable state witness Bruno Mtolo was unwilling to concede even this general point to the defence.
Attention is then placed on Bruno Mtolo’s visit to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Berrange questions Bruno Mtolo briefly regarding his interactions with Walter Sisulu and Arthur Goldreich before spending more time on Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada. Referring to a statement made by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange puts it to Bruno Mtolo that at the time when he was talking to both the Port Elizabeth Man and Arthur Goldreich in the Thatched Cottage, Ahmed Kathrada was not involved and did not hear anything which was discussed. Reluctantly, Bruno Mtolo admits that this could have been the case. As Dr Yutar and the prosecution team were unable to locate the leaflet Bruno Mtolo alleged was drafted by Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, and stencilled for duplication by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange returns his focus to Walter Sisulu.
Bruno Mtolo acknowledged that the reason why Walter Sisulu had asked him where Solomon Mbanjwa was, upon his arrival at the Thatched Cottage, was because Solomon Mbanjwa was supposed to have come as a representative of the ANC. This was important because Bruno Mtolo was there as a representative of the MK which was a different organisation to the ANC.
Having made this point, Mr Berrange then went on to question Bruno Mtolo about acts of sabotage which were carried out in contravention of the High Command instructions not to risk harm to human beings. By framing the discussion in this way, Mr Berrange got Bruno Mtolo to admit that the endangering of goods train drivers’ lives and the bombing of the Nataller newspaper offices were examples of acts of sabotage carried out contrary to instructions.
Mr Berrange then reminds Bruno Mtolo that he told the court during his examination-in-chief that after the Rivonia arrests he had talked with Billy Nair and found that the news of the arrests had been hard on him. Mr Berrange told Bruno Mtolo that he found this “rather interesting” considering that at the time the Rivonia arrests took place Billy Nair had already been arrested for some. Bruno Mtolo tried to backtrack and reframe his answer in a number of ways but he had been caught in a clear lie by Mr Berrange. Unfortunately for the defence, the lies and contradictions exposed in Bruno Mtolo’s evidence during his cross-examination did not prevent his testimony from tying all of the accused (except for James Kantor and Rusty Bernstein) to acts of sabotage and the planning of, and recruiting of troops for, an armed overthrow of the apartheid government.
Eventually Dr Yutar submitted to the court the leaflet alleged to have been created by Govan Mbeki and Ahmed Kathrada (Exhibit R.10). Mr Berrange took time to read the document over before deciding not to spend time dealing with it further. Instead, Mr Berrange asks Bruno Mtolo about his evidence regarding the Chief at Bergville’s involvement in acts of sabotage and storing weapons for guerrilla warfare. Once again, Bruno Mtolo claimed that, even though this Chief was not a communist, he felt that betraying him in his evidence was a service in benefit of the ANC.
Mr Berrange informs the court that this temporarily concluded his cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. However, before stepping down, Mr Berrange makes two statements to the court. The first statement was that Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein, would deny that he had ever taken a message from the High Command to the Durban Regional Command. The second statement concerned the difficulties the defence attorney, Mr Joffe, had faced over the vacation period in interviewing certain people in regard to matters that had been testified to by Bruno Mtolo. As many of these people were themselves standing trial at the time Mr Joffe was unable, on the orders of their attorney, to get any information regarding the facts testified to by Bruno Mtolo until such time as these people had been tired and either convicted or acquitted. Therefore, Mr Berrange said that the defence were likely to submit an application to the court to have Bruno Mtolo recalled at a later stage. Judge De Wet did not object to this but did say, “I take it you will have to take your chance of his being found if you want to recall him”.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Bizos begins his cross-examination with a characteristic focus on the witness’s identification of certain accused during police interrogations as a 90 day detainee. Particular focus is placed at first on Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Mr Bizos leads Bruno Mtolo to admit that in his mind he was eager to give the police as much detail in his statement as possible in order to save both the ANC and himself.
Mr Bizos asks only a few questions regarding Bruno Mtolo’s arrest and interaction with the police before court and further cross-examination of this witness is reserved.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1B/134b) (Vol.50/2A/135b) (Vol.50/2A/136b) (Vol.50/2A/137b) (Vol.50/2A/138b) (Vol.50/2A/139b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 16th January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
During this second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination Mr Berrange and Mr Bizos both question the witness. Mr Berrange continues with his line of inquiry and focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding his trip to meet with the High Command at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Bizos characteristically focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s experience in police custody and the circumstances in which he made his various statements.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was his inherent denial that his actions had in any way harmed the ANC and its non-communist membership. Bruno Mtolo goes so far as to suggest that by given evidence against the accused in this case he was actually doing a service for the ANC and the struggle against oppression in South Africa.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange continued.
The second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination began with Mr Berrange proving the court of a summary of the points discussed on the previous day and with Bruno Mtolo giving the court an apology for his tired mental state and lack of memory. Mr Berrange first returned his focus to the question of Harold Strachan’s meeting with, and instructions to, the Durban Regional Command. Mr Berrange refers to the court records of the previous day’s examination to reiterate the allegations Bruno Mtolo had made, regarding things said by Harold Strachan during his first meeting with the Regional Command, which he had failed to mention at all during his examination-in-chief.
Thereafter, Mr Berrange follows the same tactic in referring Bruno Mtolo to the events concerning Andrew Mlangeni and Brian Simani’s meeting with the Durban Regional Command during April/May, 1963. Once again in Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination he completely negated, or forgot, to mention a substantial amount of detail regarding this meeting as discussed in his examination-in-chief. In particular Bruno Mtolo made no mention of the complaints which he had told the court Andrew Mlangeni had been given by the Regional Command to take back to the High Command concerning, most importantly, the payment and safety of recruits. The point Mr Berrange was trying, with limited success, to get Bruno Mtolo to concede was that “as a human being, you can forget the most important things sometimes”. As a formidable state witness Bruno Mtolo was unwilling to concede even this general point to the defence.
Attention is then placed on Bruno Mtolo’s visit to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Berrange questions Bruno Mtolo briefly regarding his interactions with Walter Sisulu and Arthur Goldreich before spending more time on Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada. Referring to a statement made by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange puts it to Bruno Mtolo that at the time when he was talking to both the Port Elizabeth Man and Arthur Goldreich in the Thatched Cottage, Ahmed Kathrada was not involved and did not hear anything which was discussed. Reluctantly, Bruno Mtolo admits that this could have been the case. As Dr Yutar and the prosecution team were unable to locate the leaflet Bruno Mtolo alleged was drafted by Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, and stencilled for duplication by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange returns his focus to Walter Sisulu.
Bruno Mtolo acknowledged that the reason why Walter Sisulu had asked him where Solomon Mbanjwa was, upon his arrival at the Thatched Cottage, was because Solomon Mbanjwa was supposed to have come as a representative of the ANC. This was important because Bruno Mtolo was there as a representative of the MK which was a different organisation to the ANC.
Having made this point, Mr Berrange then went on to question Bruno Mtolo about acts of sabotage which were carried out in contravention of the High Command instructions not to risk harm to human beings. By framing the discussion in this way, Mr Berrange got Bruno Mtolo to admit that the endangering of goods train drivers’ lives and the bombing of the Nataller newspaper offices were examples of acts of sabotage carried out contrary to instructions.
Mr Berrange then reminds Bruno Mtolo that he told the court during his examination-in-chief that after the Rivonia arrests he had talked with Billy Nair and found that the news of the arrests had been hard on him. Mr Berrange told Bruno Mtolo that he found this “rather interesting” considering that at the time the Rivonia arrests took place Billy Nair had already been arrested for some. Bruno Mtolo tried to backtrack and reframe his answer in a number of ways but he had been caught in a clear lie by Mr Berrange. Unfortunately for the defence, the lies and contradictions exposed in Bruno Mtolo’s evidence during his cross-examination did not prevent his testimony from tying all of the accused (except for James Kantor and Rusty Bernstein) to acts of sabotage and the planning of, and recruiting of troops for, an armed overthrow of the apartheid government.
Eventually Dr Yutar submitted to the court the leaflet alleged to have been created by Govan Mbeki and Ahmed Kathrada (Exhibit R.10). Mr Berrange took time to read the document over before deciding not to spend time dealing with it further. Instead, Mr Berrange asks Bruno Mtolo about his evidence regarding the Chief at Bergville’s involvement in acts of sabotage and storing weapons for guerrilla warfare. Once again, Bruno Mtolo claimed that, even though this Chief was not a communist, he felt that betraying him in his evidence was a service in benefit of the ANC.
Mr Berrange informs the court that this temporarily concluded his cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. However, before stepping down, Mr Berrange makes two statements to the court. The first statement was that Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein, would deny that he had ever taken a message from the High Command to the Durban Regional Command. The second statement concerned the difficulties the defence attorney, Mr Joffe, had faced over the vacation period in interviewing certain people in regard to matters that had been testified to by Bruno Mtolo. As many of these people were themselves standing trial at the time Mr Joffe was unable, on the orders of their attorney, to get any information regarding the facts testified to by Bruno Mtolo until such time as these people had been tired and either convicted or acquitted. Therefore, Mr Berrange said that the defence were likely to submit an application to the court to have Bruno Mtolo recalled at a later stage. Judge De Wet did not object to this but did say, “I take it you will have to take your chance of his being found if you want to recall him”.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Bizos begins his cross-examination with a characteristic focus on the witness’s identification of certain accused during police interrogations as a 90 day detainee. Particular focus is placed at first on Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Mr Bizos leads Bruno Mtolo to admit that in his mind he was eager to give the police as much detail in his statement as possible in order to save both the ANC and himself.
Mr Bizos asks only a few questions regarding Bruno Mtolo’s arrest and interaction with the police before court and further cross-examination of this witness is reserved.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1B/134b) (Vol.50/2A/135b) (Vol.50/2A/136b) (Vol.50/2A/137b) (Vol.50/2A/138b) (Vol.50/2A/139b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 16th January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
During this second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination Mr Berrange and Mr Bizos both question the witness. Mr Berrange continues with his line of inquiry and focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding his trip to meet with the High Command at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Bizos characteristically focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s experience in police custody and the circumstances in which he made his various statements.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was his inherent denial that his actions had in any way harmed the ANC and its non-communist membership. Bruno Mtolo goes so far as to suggest that by given evidence against the accused in this case he was actually doing a service for the ANC and the struggle against oppression in South Africa.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange continued.
The second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination began with Mr Berrange proving the court of a summary of the points discussed on the previous day and with Bruno Mtolo giving the court an apology for his tired mental state and lack of memory. Mr Berrange first returned his focus to the question of Harold Strachan’s meeting with, and instructions to, the Durban Regional Command. Mr Berrange refers to the court records of the previous day’s examination to reiterate the allegations Bruno Mtolo had made, regarding things said by Harold Strachan during his first meeting with the Regional Command, which he had failed to mention at all during his examination-in-chief.
Thereafter, Mr Berrange follows the same tactic in referring Bruno Mtolo to the events concerning Andrew Mlangeni and Brian Simani’s meeting with the Durban Regional Command during April/May, 1963. Once again in Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination he completely negated, or forgot, to mention a substantial amount of detail regarding this meeting as discussed in his examination-in-chief. In particular Bruno Mtolo made no mention of the complaints which he had told the court Andrew Mlangeni had been given by the Regional Command to take back to the High Command concerning, most importantly, the payment and safety of recruits. The point Mr Berrange was trying, with limited success, to get Bruno Mtolo to concede was that “as a human being, you can forget the most important things sometimes”. As a formidable state witness Bruno Mtolo was unwilling to concede even this general point to the defence.
Attention is then placed on Bruno Mtolo’s visit to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Berrange questions Bruno Mtolo briefly regarding his interactions with Walter Sisulu and Arthur Goldreich before spending more time on Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada. Referring to a statement made by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange puts it to Bruno Mtolo that at the time when he was talking to both the Port Elizabeth Man and Arthur Goldreich in the Thatched Cottage, Ahmed Kathrada was not involved and did not hear anything which was discussed. Reluctantly, Bruno Mtolo admits that this could have been the case. As Dr Yutar and the prosecution team were unable to locate the leaflet Bruno Mtolo alleged was drafted by Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, and stencilled for duplication by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange returns his focus to Walter Sisulu.
Bruno Mtolo acknowledged that the reason why Walter Sisulu had asked him where Solomon Mbanjwa was, upon his arrival at the Thatched Cottage, was because Solomon Mbanjwa was supposed to have come as a representative of the ANC. This was important because Bruno Mtolo was there as a representative of the MK which was a different organisation to the ANC.
Having made this point, Mr Berrange then went on to question Bruno Mtolo about acts of sabotage which were carried out in contravention of the High Command instructions not to risk harm to human beings. By framing the discussion in this way, Mr Berrange got Bruno Mtolo to admit that the endangering of goods train drivers’ lives and the bombing of the Nataller newspaper offices were examples of acts of sabotage carried out contrary to instructions.
Mr Berrange then reminds Bruno Mtolo that he told the court during his examination-in-chief that after the Rivonia arrests he had talked with Billy Nair and found that the news of the arrests had been hard on him. Mr Berrange told Bruno Mtolo that he found this “rather interesting” considering that at the time the Rivonia arrests took place Billy Nair had already been arrested for some. Bruno Mtolo tried to backtrack and reframe his answer in a number of ways but he had been caught in a clear lie by Mr Berrange. Unfortunately for the defence, the lies and contradictions exposed in Bruno Mtolo’s evidence during his cross-examination did not prevent his testimony from tying all of the accused (except for James Kantor and Rusty Bernstein) to acts of sabotage and the planning of, and recruiting of troops for, an armed overthrow of the apartheid government.
Eventually Dr Yutar submitted to the court the leaflet alleged to have been created by Govan Mbeki and Ahmed Kathrada (Exhibit R.10). Mr Berrange took time to read the document over before deciding not to spend time dealing with it further. Instead, Mr Berrange asks Bruno Mtolo about his evidence regarding the Chief at Bergville’s involvement in acts of sabotage and storing weapons for guerrilla warfare. Once again, Bruno Mtolo claimed that, even though this Chief was not a communist, he felt that betraying him in his evidence was a service in benefit of the ANC.
Mr Berrange informs the court that this temporarily concluded his cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. However, before stepping down, Mr Berrange makes two statements to the court. The first statement was that Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein, would deny that he had ever taken a message from the High Command to the Durban Regional Command. The second statement concerned the difficulties the defence attorney, Mr Joffe, had faced over the vacation period in interviewing certain people in regard to matters that had been testified to by Bruno Mtolo. As many of these people were themselves standing trial at the time Mr Joffe was unable, on the orders of their attorney, to get any information regarding the facts testified to by Bruno Mtolo until such time as these people had been tired and either convicted or acquitted. Therefore, Mr Berrange said that the defence were likely to submit an application to the court to have Bruno Mtolo recalled at a later stage. Judge De Wet did not object to this but did say, “I take it you will have to take your chance of his being found if you want to recall him”.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Bizos begins his cross-examination with a characteristic focus on the witness’s identification of certain accused during police interrogations as a 90 day detainee. Particular focus is placed at first on Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Mr Bizos leads Bruno Mtolo to admit that in his mind he was eager to give the police as much detail in his statement as possible in order to save both the ANC and himself.
Mr Bizos asks only a few questions regarding Bruno Mtolo’s arrest and interaction with the police before court and further cross-examination of this witness is reserved.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1B/134b) (Vol.50/2A/135b) (Vol.50/2A/136b) (Vol.50/2A/137b) (Vol.50/2A/138b) (Vol.50/2A/139b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 16th January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
During this second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination Mr Berrange and Mr Bizos both question the witness. Mr Berrange continues with his line of inquiry and focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding his trip to meet with the High Command at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Bizos characteristically focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s experience in police custody and the circumstances in which he made his various statements.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was his inherent denial that his actions had in any way harmed the ANC and its non-communist membership. Bruno Mtolo goes so far as to suggest that by given evidence against the accused in this case he was actually doing a service for the ANC and the struggle against oppression in South Africa.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange continued.
The second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination began with Mr Berrange proving the court of a summary of the points discussed on the previous day and with Bruno Mtolo giving the court an apology for his tired mental state and lack of memory. Mr Berrange first returned his focus to the question of Harold Strachan’s meeting with, and instructions to, the Durban Regional Command. Mr Berrange refers to the court records of the previous day’s examination to reiterate the allegations Bruno Mtolo had made, regarding things said by Harold Strachan during his first meeting with the Regional Command, which he had failed to mention at all during his examination-in-chief.
Thereafter, Mr Berrange follows the same tactic in referring Bruno Mtolo to the events concerning Andrew Mlangeni and Brian Simani’s meeting with the Durban Regional Command during April/May, 1963. Once again in Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination he completely negated, or forgot, to mention a substantial amount of detail regarding this meeting as discussed in his examination-in-chief. In particular Bruno Mtolo made no mention of the complaints which he had told the court Andrew Mlangeni had been given by the Regional Command to take back to the High Command concerning, most importantly, the payment and safety of recruits. The point Mr Berrange was trying, with limited success, to get Bruno Mtolo to concede was that “as a human being, you can forget the most important things sometimes”. As a formidable state witness Bruno Mtolo was unwilling to concede even this general point to the defence.
Attention is then placed on Bruno Mtolo’s visit to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Berrange questions Bruno Mtolo briefly regarding his interactions with Walter Sisulu and Arthur Goldreich before spending more time on Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada. Referring to a statement made by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange puts it to Bruno Mtolo that at the time when he was talking to both the Port Elizabeth Man and Arthur Goldreich in the Thatched Cottage, Ahmed Kathrada was not involved and did not hear anything which was discussed. Reluctantly, Bruno Mtolo admits that this could have been the case. As Dr Yutar and the prosecution team were unable to locate the leaflet Bruno Mtolo alleged was drafted by Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, and stencilled for duplication by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange returns his focus to Walter Sisulu.
Bruno Mtolo acknowledged that the reason why Walter Sisulu had asked him where Solomon Mbanjwa was, upon his arrival at the Thatched Cottage, was because Solomon Mbanjwa was supposed to have come as a representative of the ANC. This was important because Bruno Mtolo was there as a representative of the MK which was a different organisation to the ANC.
Having made this point, Mr Berrange then went on to question Bruno Mtolo about acts of sabotage which were carried out in contravention of the High Command instructions not to risk harm to human beings. By framing the discussion in this way, Mr Berrange got Bruno Mtolo to admit that the endangering of goods train drivers’ lives and the bombing of the Nataller newspaper offices were examples of acts of sabotage carried out contrary to instructions.
Mr Berrange then reminds Bruno Mtolo that he told the court during his examination-in-chief that after the Rivonia arrests he had talked with Billy Nair and found that the news of the arrests had been hard on him. Mr Berrange told Bruno Mtolo that he found this “rather interesting” considering that at the time the Rivonia arrests took place Billy Nair had already been arrested for some. Bruno Mtolo tried to backtrack and reframe his answer in a number of ways but he had been caught in a clear lie by Mr Berrange. Unfortunately for the defence, the lies and contradictions exposed in Bruno Mtolo’s evidence during his cross-examination did not prevent his testimony from tying all of the accused (except for James Kantor and Rusty Bernstein) to acts of sabotage and the planning of, and recruiting of troops for, an armed overthrow of the apartheid government.
Eventually Dr Yutar submitted to the court the leaflet alleged to have been created by Govan Mbeki and Ahmed Kathrada (Exhibit R.10). Mr Berrange took time to read the document over before deciding not to spend time dealing with it further. Instead, Mr Berrange asks Bruno Mtolo about his evidence regarding the Chief at Bergville’s involvement in acts of sabotage and storing weapons for guerrilla warfare. Once again, Bruno Mtolo claimed that, even though this Chief was not a communist, he felt that betraying him in his evidence was a service in benefit of the ANC.
Mr Berrange informs the court that this temporarily concluded his cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. However, before stepping down, Mr Berrange makes two statements to the court. The first statement was that Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein, would deny that he had ever taken a message from the High Command to the Durban Regional Command. The second statement concerned the difficulties the defence attorney, Mr Joffe, had faced over the vacation period in interviewing certain people in regard to matters that had been testified to by Bruno Mtolo. As many of these people were themselves standing trial at the time Mr Joffe was unable, on the orders of their attorney, to get any information regarding the facts testified to by Bruno Mtolo until such time as these people had been tired and either convicted or acquitted. Therefore, Mr Berrange said that the defence were likely to submit an application to the court to have Bruno Mtolo recalled at a later stage. Judge De Wet did not object to this but did say, “I take it you will have to take your chance of his being found if you want to recall him”.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Bizos begins his cross-examination with a characteristic focus on the witness’s identification of certain accused during police interrogations as a 90 day detainee. Particular focus is placed at first on Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Mr Bizos leads Bruno Mtolo to admit that in his mind he was eager to give the police as much detail in his statement as possible in order to save both the ANC and himself.
Mr Bizos asks only a few questions regarding Bruno Mtolo’s arrest and interaction with the police before court and further cross-examination of this witness is reserved.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1B/134b) (Vol.50/2A/135b) (Vol.50/2A/136b) (Vol.50/2A/137b) (Vol.50/2A/138b) (Vol.50/2A/139b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 16th January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
During this second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination Mr Berrange and Mr Bizos both question the witness. Mr Berrange continues with his line of inquiry and focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding his trip to meet with the High Command at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Bizos characteristically focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s experience in police custody and the circumstances in which he made his various statements.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was his inherent denial that his actions had in any way harmed the ANC and its non-communist membership. Bruno Mtolo goes so far as to suggest that by given evidence against the accused in this case he was actually doing a service for the ANC and the struggle against oppression in South Africa.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange continued.
The second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination began with Mr Berrange proving the court of a summary of the points discussed on the previous day and with Bruno Mtolo giving the court an apology for his tired mental state and lack of memory. Mr Berrange first returned his focus to the question of Harold Strachan’s meeting with, and instructions to, the Durban Regional Command. Mr Berrange refers to the court records of the previous day’s examination to reiterate the allegations Bruno Mtolo had made, regarding things said by Harold Strachan during his first meeting with the Regional Command, which he had failed to mention at all during his examination-in-chief.
Thereafter, Mr Berrange follows the same tactic in referring Bruno Mtolo to the events concerning Andrew Mlangeni and Brian Simani’s meeting with the Durban Regional Command during April/May, 1963. Once again in Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination he completely negated, or forgot, to mention a substantial amount of detail regarding this meeting as discussed in his examination-in-chief. In particular Bruno Mtolo made no mention of the complaints which he had told the court Andrew Mlangeni had been given by the Regional Command to take back to the High Command concerning, most importantly, the payment and safety of recruits. The point Mr Berrange was trying, with limited success, to get Bruno Mtolo to concede was that “as a human being, you can forget the most important things sometimes”. As a formidable state witness Bruno Mtolo was unwilling to concede even this general point to the defence.
Attention is then placed on Bruno Mtolo’s visit to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Berrange questions Bruno Mtolo briefly regarding his interactions with Walter Sisulu and Arthur Goldreich before spending more time on Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada. Referring to a statement made by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange puts it to Bruno Mtolo that at the time when he was talking to both the Port Elizabeth Man and Arthur Goldreich in the Thatched Cottage, Ahmed Kathrada was not involved and did not hear anything which was discussed. Reluctantly, Bruno Mtolo admits that this could have been the case. As Dr Yutar and the prosecution team were unable to locate the leaflet Bruno Mtolo alleged was drafted by Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, and stencilled for duplication by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange returns his focus to Walter Sisulu.
Bruno Mtolo acknowledged that the reason why Walter Sisulu had asked him where Solomon Mbanjwa was, upon his arrival at the Thatched Cottage, was because Solomon Mbanjwa was supposed to have come as a representative of the ANC. This was important because Bruno Mtolo was there as a representative of the MK which was a different organisation to the ANC.
Having made this point, Mr Berrange then went on to question Bruno Mtolo about acts of sabotage which were carried out in contravention of the High Command instructions not to risk harm to human beings. By framing the discussion in this way, Mr Berrange got Bruno Mtolo to admit that the endangering of goods train drivers’ lives and the bombing of the Nataller newspaper offices were examples of acts of sabotage carried out contrary to instructions.
Mr Berrange then reminds Bruno Mtolo that he told the court during his examination-in-chief that after the Rivonia arrests he had talked with Billy Nair and found that the news of the arrests had been hard on him. Mr Berrange told Bruno Mtolo that he found this “rather interesting” considering that at the time the Rivonia arrests took place Billy Nair had already been arrested for some. Bruno Mtolo tried to backtrack and reframe his answer in a number of ways but he had been caught in a clear lie by Mr Berrange. Unfortunately for the defence, the lies and contradictions exposed in Bruno Mtolo’s evidence during his cross-examination did not prevent his testimony from tying all of the accused (except for James Kantor and Rusty Bernstein) to acts of sabotage and the planning of, and recruiting of troops for, an armed overthrow of the apartheid government.
Eventually Dr Yutar submitted to the court the leaflet alleged to have been created by Govan Mbeki and Ahmed Kathrada (Exhibit R.10). Mr Berrange took time to read the document over before deciding not to spend time dealing with it further. Instead, Mr Berrange asks Bruno Mtolo about his evidence regarding the Chief at Bergville’s involvement in acts of sabotage and storing weapons for guerrilla warfare. Once again, Bruno Mtolo claimed that, even though this Chief was not a communist, he felt that betraying him in his evidence was a service in benefit of the ANC.
Mr Berrange informs the court that this temporarily concluded his cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. However, before stepping down, Mr Berrange makes two statements to the court. The first statement was that Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein, would deny that he had ever taken a message from the High Command to the Durban Regional Command. The second statement concerned the difficulties the defence attorney, Mr Joffe, had faced over the vacation period in interviewing certain people in regard to matters that had been testified to by Bruno Mtolo. As many of these people were themselves standing trial at the time Mr Joffe was unable, on the orders of their attorney, to get any information regarding the facts testified to by Bruno Mtolo until such time as these people had been tired and either convicted or acquitted. Therefore, Mr Berrange said that the defence were likely to submit an application to the court to have Bruno Mtolo recalled at a later stage. Judge De Wet did not object to this but did say, “I take it you will have to take your chance of his being found if you want to recall him”.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Bizos begins his cross-examination with a characteristic focus on the witness’s identification of certain accused during police interrogations as a 90 day detainee. Particular focus is placed at first on Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Mr Bizos leads Bruno Mtolo to admit that in his mind he was eager to give the police as much detail in his statement as possible in order to save both the ANC and himself.
Mr Bizos asks only a few questions regarding Bruno Mtolo’s arrest and interaction with the police before court and further cross-examination of this witness is reserved.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1B/134b) (Vol.50/2A/135b) (Vol.50/2A/136b) (Vol.50/2A/137b) (Vol.50/2A/138b) (Vol.50/2A/139b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 16th January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
During this second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination Mr Berrange and Mr Bizos both question the witness. Mr Berrange continues with his line of inquiry and focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding his trip to meet with the High Command at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Bizos characteristically focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s experience in police custody and the circumstances in which he made his various statements.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was his inherent denial that his actions had in any way harmed the ANC and its non-communist membership. Bruno Mtolo goes so far as to suggest that by given evidence against the accused in this case he was actually doing a service for the ANC and the struggle against oppression in South Africa.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange continued.
The second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination began with Mr Berrange proving the court of a summary of the points discussed on the previous day and with Bruno Mtolo giving the court an apology for his tired mental state and lack of memory. Mr Berrange first returned his focus to the question of Harold Strachan’s meeting with, and instructions to, the Durban Regional Command. Mr Berrange refers to the court records of the previous day’s examination to reiterate the allegations Bruno Mtolo had made, regarding things said by Harold Strachan during his first meeting with the Regional Command, which he had failed to mention at all during his examination-in-chief.
Thereafter, Mr Berrange follows the same tactic in referring Bruno Mtolo to the events concerning Andrew Mlangeni and Brian Simani’s meeting with the Durban Regional Command during April/May, 1963. Once again in Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination he completely negated, or forgot, to mention a substantial amount of detail regarding this meeting as discussed in his examination-in-chief. In particular Bruno Mtolo made no mention of the complaints which he had told the court Andrew Mlangeni had been given by the Regional Command to take back to the High Command concerning, most importantly, the payment and safety of recruits. The point Mr Berrange was trying, with limited success, to get Bruno Mtolo to concede was that “as a human being, you can forget the most important things sometimes”. As a formidable state witness Bruno Mtolo was unwilling to concede even this general point to the defence.
Attention is then placed on Bruno Mtolo’s visit to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Berrange questions Bruno Mtolo briefly regarding his interactions with Walter Sisulu and Arthur Goldreich before spending more time on Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada. Referring to a statement made by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange puts it to Bruno Mtolo that at the time when he was talking to both the Port Elizabeth Man and Arthur Goldreich in the Thatched Cottage, Ahmed Kathrada was not involved and did not hear anything which was discussed. Reluctantly, Bruno Mtolo admits that this could have been the case. As Dr Yutar and the prosecution team were unable to locate the leaflet Bruno Mtolo alleged was drafted by Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, and stencilled for duplication by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange returns his focus to Walter Sisulu.
Bruno Mtolo acknowledged that the reason why Walter Sisulu had asked him where Solomon Mbanjwa was, upon his arrival at the Thatched Cottage, was because Solomon Mbanjwa was supposed to have come as a representative of the ANC. This was important because Bruno Mtolo was there as a representative of the MK which was a different organisation to the ANC.
Having made this point, Mr Berrange then went on to question Bruno Mtolo about acts of sabotage which were carried out in contravention of the High Command instructions not to risk harm to human beings. By framing the discussion in this way, Mr Berrange got Bruno Mtolo to admit that the endangering of goods train drivers’ lives and the bombing of the Nataller newspaper offices were examples of acts of sabotage carried out contrary to instructions.
Mr Berrange then reminds Bruno Mtolo that he told the court during his examination-in-chief that after the Rivonia arrests he had talked with Billy Nair and found that the news of the arrests had been hard on him. Mr Berrange told Bruno Mtolo that he found this “rather interesting” considering that at the time the Rivonia arrests took place Billy Nair had already been arrested for some. Bruno Mtolo tried to backtrack and reframe his answer in a number of ways but he had been caught in a clear lie by Mr Berrange. Unfortunately for the defence, the lies and contradictions exposed in Bruno Mtolo’s evidence during his cross-examination did not prevent his testimony from tying all of the accused (except for James Kantor and Rusty Bernstein) to acts of sabotage and the planning of, and recruiting of troops for, an armed overthrow of the apartheid government.
Eventually Dr Yutar submitted to the court the leaflet alleged to have been created by Govan Mbeki and Ahmed Kathrada (Exhibit R.10). Mr Berrange took time to read the document over before deciding not to spend time dealing with it further. Instead, Mr Berrange asks Bruno Mtolo about his evidence regarding the Chief at Bergville’s involvement in acts of sabotage and storing weapons for guerrilla warfare. Once again, Bruno Mtolo claimed that, even though this Chief was not a communist, he felt that betraying him in his evidence was a service in benefit of the ANC.
Mr Berrange informs the court that this temporarily concluded his cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. However, before stepping down, Mr Berrange makes two statements to the court. The first statement was that Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein, would deny that he had ever taken a message from the High Command to the Durban Regional Command. The second statement concerned the difficulties the defence attorney, Mr Joffe, had faced over the vacation period in interviewing certain people in regard to matters that had been testified to by Bruno Mtolo. As many of these people were themselves standing trial at the time Mr Joffe was unable, on the orders of their attorney, to get any information regarding the facts testified to by Bruno Mtolo until such time as these people had been tired and either convicted or acquitted. Therefore, Mr Berrange said that the defence were likely to submit an application to the court to have Bruno Mtolo recalled at a later stage. Judge De Wet did not object to this but did say, “I take it you will have to take your chance of his being found if you want to recall him”.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Bizos begins his cross-examination with a characteristic focus on the witness’s identification of certain accused during police interrogations as a 90 day detainee. Particular focus is placed at first on Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Mr Bizos leads Bruno Mtolo to admit that in his mind he was eager to give the police as much detail in his statement as possible in order to save both the ANC and himself.
Mr Bizos asks only a few questions regarding Bruno Mtolo’s arrest and interaction with the police before court and further cross-examination of this witness is reserved.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1B/134b) (Vol.50/2A/135b) (Vol.50/2A/136b) (Vol.50/2A/137b) (Vol.50/2A/138b) (Vol.50/2A/139b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 16th January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
During this second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination Mr Berrange and Mr Bizos both question the witness. Mr Berrange continues with his line of inquiry and focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding his trip to meet with the High Command at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Bizos characteristically focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s experience in police custody and the circumstances in which he made his various statements.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was his inherent denial that his actions had in any way harmed the ANC and its non-communist membership. Bruno Mtolo goes so far as to suggest that by given evidence against the accused in this case he was actually doing a service for the ANC and the struggle against oppression in South Africa.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange continued.
The second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination began with Mr Berrange proving the court of a summary of the points discussed on the previous day and with Bruno Mtolo giving the court an apology for his tired mental state and lack of memory. Mr Berrange first returned his focus to the question of Harold Strachan’s meeting with, and instructions to, the Durban Regional Command. Mr Berrange refers to the court records of the previous day’s examination to reiterate the allegations Bruno Mtolo had made, regarding things said by Harold Strachan during his first meeting with the Regional Command, which he had failed to mention at all during his examination-in-chief.
Thereafter, Mr Berrange follows the same tactic in referring Bruno Mtolo to the events concerning Andrew Mlangeni and Brian Simani’s meeting with the Durban Regional Command during April/May, 1963. Once again in Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination he completely negated, or forgot, to mention a substantial amount of detail regarding this meeting as discussed in his examination-in-chief. In particular Bruno Mtolo made no mention of the complaints which he had told the court Andrew Mlangeni had been given by the Regional Command to take back to the High Command concerning, most importantly, the payment and safety of recruits. The point Mr Berrange was trying, with limited success, to get Bruno Mtolo to concede was that “as a human being, you can forget the most important things sometimes”. As a formidable state witness Bruno Mtolo was unwilling to concede even this general point to the defence.
Attention is then placed on Bruno Mtolo’s visit to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Berrange questions Bruno Mtolo briefly regarding his interactions with Walter Sisulu and Arthur Goldreich before spending more time on Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada. Referring to a statement made by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange puts it to Bruno Mtolo that at the time when he was talking to both the Port Elizabeth Man and Arthur Goldreich in the Thatched Cottage, Ahmed Kathrada was not involved and did not hear anything which was discussed. Reluctantly, Bruno Mtolo admits that this could have been the case. As Dr Yutar and the prosecution team were unable to locate the leaflet Bruno Mtolo alleged was drafted by Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, and stencilled for duplication by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange returns his focus to Walter Sisulu.
Bruno Mtolo acknowledged that the reason why Walter Sisulu had asked him where Solomon Mbanjwa was, upon his arrival at the Thatched Cottage, was because Solomon Mbanjwa was supposed to have come as a representative of the ANC. This was important because Bruno Mtolo was there as a representative of the MK which was a different organisation to the ANC.
Having made this point, Mr Berrange then went on to question Bruno Mtolo about acts of sabotage which were carried out in contravention of the High Command instructions not to risk harm to human beings. By framing the discussion in this way, Mr Berrange got Bruno Mtolo to admit that the endangering of goods train drivers’ lives and the bombing of the Nataller newspaper offices were examples of acts of sabotage carried out contrary to instructions.
Mr Berrange then reminds Bruno Mtolo that he told the court during his examination-in-chief that after the Rivonia arrests he had talked with Billy Nair and found that the news of the arrests had been hard on him. Mr Berrange told Bruno Mtolo that he found this “rather interesting” considering that at the time the Rivonia arrests took place Billy Nair had already been arrested for some. Bruno Mtolo tried to backtrack and reframe his answer in a number of ways but he had been caught in a clear lie by Mr Berrange. Unfortunately for the defence, the lies and contradictions exposed in Bruno Mtolo’s evidence during his cross-examination did not prevent his testimony from tying all of the accused (except for James Kantor and Rusty Bernstein) to acts of sabotage and the planning of, and recruiting of troops for, an armed overthrow of the apartheid government.
Eventually Dr Yutar submitted to the court the leaflet alleged to have been created by Govan Mbeki and Ahmed Kathrada (Exhibit R.10). Mr Berrange took time to read the document over before deciding not to spend time dealing with it further. Instead, Mr Berrange asks Bruno Mtolo about his evidence regarding the Chief at Bergville’s involvement in acts of sabotage and storing weapons for guerrilla warfare. Once again, Bruno Mtolo claimed that, even though this Chief was not a communist, he felt that betraying him in his evidence was a service in benefit of the ANC.
Mr Berrange informs the court that this temporarily concluded his cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. However, before stepping down, Mr Berrange makes two statements to the court. The first statement was that Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein, would deny that he had ever taken a message from the High Command to the Durban Regional Command. The second statement concerned the difficulties the defence attorney, Mr Joffe, had faced over the vacation period in interviewing certain people in regard to matters that had been testified to by Bruno Mtolo. As many of these people were themselves standing trial at the time Mr Joffe was unable, on the orders of their attorney, to get any information regarding the facts testified to by Bruno Mtolo until such time as these people had been tired and either convicted or acquitted. Therefore, Mr Berrange said that the defence were likely to submit an application to the court to have Bruno Mtolo recalled at a later stage. Judge De Wet did not object to this but did say, “I take it you will have to take your chance of his being found if you want to recall him”.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Bizos begins his cross-examination with a characteristic focus on the witness’s identification of certain accused during police interrogations as a 90 day detainee. Particular focus is placed at first on Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Mr Bizos leads Bruno Mtolo to admit that in his mind he was eager to give the police as much detail in his statement as possible in order to save both the ANC and himself.
Mr Bizos asks only a few questions regarding Bruno Mtolo’s arrest and interaction with the police before court and further cross-examination of this witness is reserved.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1B/134b) (Vol.50/2A/135b) (Vol.50/2A/136b) (Vol.50/2A/137b) (Vol.50/2A/138b) (Vol.50/2A/139b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 16th January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
During this second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination Mr Berrange and Mr Bizos both question the witness. Mr Berrange continues with his line of inquiry and focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding his trip to meet with the High Command at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Bizos characteristically focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s experience in police custody and the circumstances in which he made his various statements.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was his inherent denial that his actions had in any way harmed the ANC and its non-communist membership. Bruno Mtolo goes so far as to suggest that by given evidence against the accused in this case he was actually doing a service for the ANC and the struggle against oppression in South Africa.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange continued.
The second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination began with Mr Berrange proving the court of a summary of the points discussed on the previous day and with Bruno Mtolo giving the court an apology for his tired mental state and lack of memory. Mr Berrange first returned his focus to the question of Harold Strachan’s meeting with, and instructions to, the Durban Regional Command. Mr Berrange refers to the court records of the previous day’s examination to reiterate the allegations Bruno Mtolo had made, regarding things said by Harold Strachan during his first meeting with the Regional Command, which he had failed to mention at all during his examination-in-chief.
Thereafter, Mr Berrange follows the same tactic in referring Bruno Mtolo to the events concerning Andrew Mlangeni and Brian Simani’s meeting with the Durban Regional Command during April/May, 1963. Once again in Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination he completely negated, or forgot, to mention a substantial amount of detail regarding this meeting as discussed in his examination-in-chief. In particular Bruno Mtolo made no mention of the complaints which he had told the court Andrew Mlangeni had been given by the Regional Command to take back to the High Command concerning, most importantly, the payment and safety of recruits. The point Mr Berrange was trying, with limited success, to get Bruno Mtolo to concede was that “as a human being, you can forget the most important things sometimes”. As a formidable state witness Bruno Mtolo was unwilling to concede even this general point to the defence.
Attention is then placed on Bruno Mtolo’s visit to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Berrange questions Bruno Mtolo briefly regarding his interactions with Walter Sisulu and Arthur Goldreich before spending more time on Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada. Referring to a statement made by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange puts it to Bruno Mtolo that at the time when he was talking to both the Port Elizabeth Man and Arthur Goldreich in the Thatched Cottage, Ahmed Kathrada was not involved and did not hear anything which was discussed. Reluctantly, Bruno Mtolo admits that this could have been the case. As Dr Yutar and the prosecution team were unable to locate the leaflet Bruno Mtolo alleged was drafted by Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, and stencilled for duplication by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange returns his focus to Walter Sisulu.
Bruno Mtolo acknowledged that the reason why Walter Sisulu had asked him where Solomon Mbanjwa was, upon his arrival at the Thatched Cottage, was because Solomon Mbanjwa was supposed to have come as a representative of the ANC. This was important because Bruno Mtolo was there as a representative of the MK which was a different organisation to the ANC.
Having made this point, Mr Berrange then went on to question Bruno Mtolo about acts of sabotage which were carried out in contravention of the High Command instructions not to risk harm to human beings. By framing the discussion in this way, Mr Berrange got Bruno Mtolo to admit that the endangering of goods train drivers’ lives and the bombing of the Nataller newspaper offices were examples of acts of sabotage carried out contrary to instructions.
Mr Berrange then reminds Bruno Mtolo that he told the court during his examination-in-chief that after the Rivonia arrests he had talked with Billy Nair and found that the news of the arrests had been hard on him. Mr Berrange told Bruno Mtolo that he found this “rather interesting” considering that at the time the Rivonia arrests took place Billy Nair had already been arrested for some. Bruno Mtolo tried to backtrack and reframe his answer in a number of ways but he had been caught in a clear lie by Mr Berrange. Unfortunately for the defence, the lies and contradictions exposed in Bruno Mtolo’s evidence during his cross-examination did not prevent his testimony from tying all of the accused (except for James Kantor and Rusty Bernstein) to acts of sabotage and the planning of, and recruiting of troops for, an armed overthrow of the apartheid government.
Eventually Dr Yutar submitted to the court the leaflet alleged to have been created by Govan Mbeki and Ahmed Kathrada (Exhibit R.10). Mr Berrange took time to read the document over before deciding not to spend time dealing with it further. Instead, Mr Berrange asks Bruno Mtolo about his evidence regarding the Chief at Bergville’s involvement in acts of sabotage and storing weapons for guerrilla warfare. Once again, Bruno Mtolo claimed that, even though this Chief was not a communist, he felt that betraying him in his evidence was a service in benefit of the ANC.
Mr Berrange informs the court that this temporarily concluded his cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. However, before stepping down, Mr Berrange makes two statements to the court. The first statement was that Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein, would deny that he had ever taken a message from the High Command to the Durban Regional Command. The second statement concerned the difficulties the defence attorney, Mr Joffe, had faced over the vacation period in interviewing certain people in regard to matters that had been testified to by Bruno Mtolo. As many of these people were themselves standing trial at the time Mr Joffe was unable, on the orders of their attorney, to get any information regarding the facts testified to by Bruno Mtolo until such time as these people had been tired and either convicted or acquitted. Therefore, Mr Berrange said that the defence were likely to submit an application to the court to have Bruno Mtolo recalled at a later stage. Judge De Wet did not object to this but did say, “I take it you will have to take your chance of his being found if you want to recall him”.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Bizos begins his cross-examination with a characteristic focus on the witness’s identification of certain accused during police interrogations as a 90 day detainee. Particular focus is placed at first on Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Mr Bizos leads Bruno Mtolo to admit that in his mind he was eager to give the police as much detail in his statement as possible in order to save both the ANC and himself.
Mr Bizos asks only a few questions regarding Bruno Mtolo’s arrest and interaction with the police before court and further cross-examination of this witness is reserved.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1B/134b) (Vol.50/2A/135b) (Vol.50/2A/136b) (Vol.50/2A/137b) (Vol.50/2A/138b) (Vol.50/2A/139b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 16th January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
During this second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination Mr Berrange and Mr Bizos both question the witness. Mr Berrange continues with his line of inquiry and focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding his trip to meet with the High Command at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Bizos characteristically focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s experience in police custody and the circumstances in which he made his various statements.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was his inherent denial that his actions had in any way harmed the ANC and its non-communist membership. Bruno Mtolo goes so far as to suggest that by given evidence against the accused in this case he was actually doing a service for the ANC and the struggle against oppression in South Africa.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange continued.
The second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination began with Mr Berrange proving the court of a summary of the points discussed on the previous day and with Bruno Mtolo giving the court an apology for his tired mental state and lack of memory. Mr Berrange first returned his focus to the question of Harold Strachan’s meeting with, and instructions to, the Durban Regional Command. Mr Berrange refers to the court records of the previous day’s examination to reiterate the allegations Bruno Mtolo had made, regarding things said by Harold Strachan during his first meeting with the Regional Command, which he had failed to mention at all during his examination-in-chief.
Thereafter, Mr Berrange follows the same tactic in referring Bruno Mtolo to the events concerning Andrew Mlangeni and Brian Simani’s meeting with the Durban Regional Command during April/May, 1963. Once again in Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination he completely negated, or forgot, to mention a substantial amount of detail regarding this meeting as discussed in his examination-in-chief. In particular Bruno Mtolo made no mention of the complaints which he had told the court Andrew Mlangeni had been given by the Regional Command to take back to the High Command concerning, most importantly, the payment and safety of recruits. The point Mr Berrange was trying, with limited success, to get Bruno Mtolo to concede was that “as a human being, you can forget the most important things sometimes”. As a formidable state witness Bruno Mtolo was unwilling to concede even this general point to the defence.
Attention is then placed on Bruno Mtolo’s visit to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Berrange questions Bruno Mtolo briefly regarding his interactions with Walter Sisulu and Arthur Goldreich before spending more time on Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada. Referring to a statement made by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange puts it to Bruno Mtolo that at the time when he was talking to both the Port Elizabeth Man and Arthur Goldreich in the Thatched Cottage, Ahmed Kathrada was not involved and did not hear anything which was discussed. Reluctantly, Bruno Mtolo admits that this could have been the case. As Dr Yutar and the prosecution team were unable to locate the leaflet Bruno Mtolo alleged was drafted by Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, and stencilled for duplication by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange returns his focus to Walter Sisulu.
Bruno Mtolo acknowledged that the reason why Walter Sisulu had asked him where Solomon Mbanjwa was, upon his arrival at the Thatched Cottage, was because Solomon Mbanjwa was supposed to have come as a representative of the ANC. This was important because Bruno Mtolo was there as a representative of the MK which was a different organisation to the ANC.
Having made this point, Mr Berrange then went on to question Bruno Mtolo about acts of sabotage which were carried out in contravention of the High Command instructions not to risk harm to human beings. By framing the discussion in this way, Mr Berrange got Bruno Mtolo to admit that the endangering of goods train drivers’ lives and the bombing of the Nataller newspaper offices were examples of acts of sabotage carried out contrary to instructions.
Mr Berrange then reminds Bruno Mtolo that he told the court during his examination-in-chief that after the Rivonia arrests he had talked with Billy Nair and found that the news of the arrests had been hard on him. Mr Berrange told Bruno Mtolo that he found this “rather interesting” considering that at the time the Rivonia arrests took place Billy Nair had already been arrested for some. Bruno Mtolo tried to backtrack and reframe his answer in a number of ways but he had been caught in a clear lie by Mr Berrange. Unfortunately for the defence, the lies and contradictions exposed in Bruno Mtolo’s evidence during his cross-examination did not prevent his testimony from tying all of the accused (except for James Kantor and Rusty Bernstein) to acts of sabotage and the planning of, and recruiting of troops for, an armed overthrow of the apartheid government.
Eventually Dr Yutar submitted to the court the leaflet alleged to have been created by Govan Mbeki and Ahmed Kathrada (Exhibit R.10). Mr Berrange took time to read the document over before deciding not to spend time dealing with it further. Instead, Mr Berrange asks Bruno Mtolo about his evidence regarding the Chief at Bergville’s involvement in acts of sabotage and storing weapons for guerrilla warfare. Once again, Bruno Mtolo claimed that, even though this Chief was not a communist, he felt that betraying him in his evidence was a service in benefit of the ANC.
Mr Berrange informs the court that this temporarily concluded his cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. However, before stepping down, Mr Berrange makes two statements to the court. The first statement was that Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein, would deny that he had ever taken a message from the High Command to the Durban Regional Command. The second statement concerned the difficulties the defence attorney, Mr Joffe, had faced over the vacation period in interviewing certain people in regard to matters that had been testified to by Bruno Mtolo. As many of these people were themselves standing trial at the time Mr Joffe was unable, on the orders of their attorney, to get any information regarding the facts testified to by Bruno Mtolo until such time as these people had been tired and either convicted or acquitted. Therefore, Mr Berrange said that the defence were likely to submit an application to the court to have Bruno Mtolo recalled at a later stage. Judge De Wet did not object to this but did say, “I take it you will have to take your chance of his being found if you want to recall him”.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Bizos begins his cross-examination with a characteristic focus on the witness’s identification of certain accused during police interrogations as a 90 day detainee. Particular focus is placed at first on Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Mr Bizos leads Bruno Mtolo to admit that in his mind he was eager to give the police as much detail in his statement as possible in order to save both the ANC and himself.
Mr Bizos asks only a few questions regarding Bruno Mtolo’s arrest and interaction with the police before court and further cross-examination of this witness is reserved.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1B/134b) (Vol.50/2A/135b) (Vol.50/2A/136b) (Vol.50/2A/137b) (Vol.50/2A/138b) (Vol.50/2A/139b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 16th January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
During this second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination Mr Berrange and Mr Bizos both question the witness. Mr Berrange continues with his line of inquiry and focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding his trip to meet with the High Command at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Bizos characteristically focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s experience in police custody and the circumstances in which he made his various statements.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was his inherent denial that his actions had in any way harmed the ANC and its non-communist membership. Bruno Mtolo goes so far as to suggest that by given evidence against the accused in this case he was actually doing a service for the ANC and the struggle against oppression in South Africa.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange continued.
The second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination began with Mr Berrange proving the court of a summary of the points discussed on the previous day and with Bruno Mtolo giving the court an apology for his tired mental state and lack of memory. Mr Berrange first returned his focus to the question of Harold Strachan’s meeting with, and instructions to, the Durban Regional Command. Mr Berrange refers to the court records of the previous day’s examination to reiterate the allegations Bruno Mtolo had made, regarding things said by Harold Strachan during his first meeting with the Regional Command, which he had failed to mention at all during his examination-in-chief.
Thereafter, Mr Berrange follows the same tactic in referring Bruno Mtolo to the events concerning Andrew Mlangeni and Brian Simani’s meeting with the Durban Regional Command during April/May, 1963. Once again in Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination he completely negated, or forgot, to mention a substantial amount of detail regarding this meeting as discussed in his examination-in-chief. In particular Bruno Mtolo made no mention of the complaints which he had told the court Andrew Mlangeni had been given by the Regional Command to take back to the High Command concerning, most importantly, the payment and safety of recruits. The point Mr Berrange was trying, with limited success, to get Bruno Mtolo to concede was that “as a human being, you can forget the most important things sometimes”. As a formidable state witness Bruno Mtolo was unwilling to concede even this general point to the defence.
Attention is then placed on Bruno Mtolo’s visit to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Berrange questions Bruno Mtolo briefly regarding his interactions with Walter Sisulu and Arthur Goldreich before spending more time on Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada. Referring to a statement made by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange puts it to Bruno Mtolo that at the time when he was talking to both the Port Elizabeth Man and Arthur Goldreich in the Thatched Cottage, Ahmed Kathrada was not involved and did not hear anything which was discussed. Reluctantly, Bruno Mtolo admits that this could have been the case. As Dr Yutar and the prosecution team were unable to locate the leaflet Bruno Mtolo alleged was drafted by Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, and stencilled for duplication by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange returns his focus to Walter Sisulu.
Bruno Mtolo acknowledged that the reason why Walter Sisulu had asked him where Solomon Mbanjwa was, upon his arrival at the Thatched Cottage, was because Solomon Mbanjwa was supposed to have come as a representative of the ANC. This was important because Bruno Mtolo was there as a representative of the MK which was a different organisation to the ANC.
Having made this point, Mr Berrange then went on to question Bruno Mtolo about acts of sabotage which were carried out in contravention of the High Command instructions not to risk harm to human beings. By framing the discussion in this way, Mr Berrange got Bruno Mtolo to admit that the endangering of goods train drivers’ lives and the bombing of the Nataller newspaper offices were examples of acts of sabotage carried out contrary to instructions.
Mr Berrange then reminds Bruno Mtolo that he told the court during his examination-in-chief that after the Rivonia arrests he had talked with Billy Nair and found that the news of the arrests had been hard on him. Mr Berrange told Bruno Mtolo that he found this “rather interesting” considering that at the time the Rivonia arrests took place Billy Nair had already been arrested for some. Bruno Mtolo tried to backtrack and reframe his answer in a number of ways but he had been caught in a clear lie by Mr Berrange. Unfortunately for the defence, the lies and contradictions exposed in Bruno Mtolo’s evidence during his cross-examination did not prevent his testimony from tying all of the accused (except for James Kantor and Rusty Bernstein) to acts of sabotage and the planning of, and recruiting of troops for, an armed overthrow of the apartheid government.
Eventually Dr Yutar submitted to the court the leaflet alleged to have been created by Govan Mbeki and Ahmed Kathrada (Exhibit R.10). Mr Berrange took time to read the document over before deciding not to spend time dealing with it further. Instead, Mr Berrange asks Bruno Mtolo about his evidence regarding the Chief at Bergville’s involvement in acts of sabotage and storing weapons for guerrilla warfare. Once again, Bruno Mtolo claimed that, even though this Chief was not a communist, he felt that betraying him in his evidence was a service in benefit of the ANC.
Mr Berrange informs the court that this temporarily concluded his cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. However, before stepping down, Mr Berrange makes two statements to the court. The first statement was that Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein, would deny that he had ever taken a message from the High Command to the Durban Regional Command. The second statement concerned the difficulties the defence attorney, Mr Joffe, had faced over the vacation period in interviewing certain people in regard to matters that had been testified to by Bruno Mtolo. As many of these people were themselves standing trial at the time Mr Joffe was unable, on the orders of their attorney, to get any information regarding the facts testified to by Bruno Mtolo until such time as these people had been tired and either convicted or acquitted. Therefore, Mr Berrange said that the defence were likely to submit an application to the court to have Bruno Mtolo recalled at a later stage. Judge De Wet did not object to this but did say, “I take it you will have to take your chance of his being found if you want to recall him”.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Bizos begins his cross-examination with a characteristic focus on the witness’s identification of certain accused during police interrogations as a 90 day detainee. Particular focus is placed at first on Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Mr Bizos leads Bruno Mtolo to admit that in his mind he was eager to give the police as much detail in his statement as possible in order to save both the ANC and himself.
Mr Bizos asks only a few questions regarding Bruno Mtolo’s arrest and interaction with the police before court and further cross-examination of this witness is reserved.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1B/134b) (Vol.50/2A/135b) (Vol.50/2A/136b) (Vol.50/2A/137b) (Vol.50/2A/138b) (Vol.50/2A/139b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 16th January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
During this second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination Mr Berrange and Mr Bizos both question the witness. Mr Berrange continues with his line of inquiry and focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s evidence regarding his trip to meet with the High Command at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Bizos characteristically focuses on Bruno Mtolo’s experience in police custody and the circumstances in which he made his various statements.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination was his inherent denial that his actions had in any way harmed the ANC and its non-communist membership. Bruno Mtolo goes so far as to suggest that by given evidence against the accused in this case he was actually doing a service for the ANC and the struggle against oppression in South Africa.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange continued.
The second day of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination began with Mr Berrange proving the court of a summary of the points discussed on the previous day and with Bruno Mtolo giving the court an apology for his tired mental state and lack of memory. Mr Berrange first returned his focus to the question of Harold Strachan’s meeting with, and instructions to, the Durban Regional Command. Mr Berrange refers to the court records of the previous day’s examination to reiterate the allegations Bruno Mtolo had made, regarding things said by Harold Strachan during his first meeting with the Regional Command, which he had failed to mention at all during his examination-in-chief.
Thereafter, Mr Berrange follows the same tactic in referring Bruno Mtolo to the events concerning Andrew Mlangeni and Brian Simani’s meeting with the Durban Regional Command during April/May, 1963. Once again in Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination he completely negated, or forgot, to mention a substantial amount of detail regarding this meeting as discussed in his examination-in-chief. In particular Bruno Mtolo made no mention of the complaints which he had told the court Andrew Mlangeni had been given by the Regional Command to take back to the High Command concerning, most importantly, the payment and safety of recruits. The point Mr Berrange was trying, with limited success, to get Bruno Mtolo to concede was that “as a human being, you can forget the most important things sometimes”. As a formidable state witness Bruno Mtolo was unwilling to concede even this general point to the defence.
Attention is then placed on Bruno Mtolo’s visit to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Mr Berrange questions Bruno Mtolo briefly regarding his interactions with Walter Sisulu and Arthur Goldreich before spending more time on Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada. Referring to a statement made by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange puts it to Bruno Mtolo that at the time when he was talking to both the Port Elizabeth Man and Arthur Goldreich in the Thatched Cottage, Ahmed Kathrada was not involved and did not hear anything which was discussed. Reluctantly, Bruno Mtolo admits that this could have been the case. As Dr Yutar and the prosecution team were unable to locate the leaflet Bruno Mtolo alleged was drafted by Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, and stencilled for duplication by Ahmed Kathrada, Mr Berrange returns his focus to Walter Sisulu.
Bruno Mtolo acknowledged that the reason why Walter Sisulu had asked him where Solomon Mbanjwa was, upon his arrival at the Thatched Cottage, was because Solomon Mbanjwa was supposed to have come as a representative of the ANC. This was important because Bruno Mtolo was there as a representative of the MK which was a different organisation to the ANC.
Having made this point, Mr Berrange then went on to question Bruno Mtolo about acts of sabotage which were carried out in contravention of the High Command instructions not to risk harm to human beings. By framing the discussion in this way, Mr Berrange got Bruno Mtolo to admit that the endangering of goods train drivers’ lives and the bombing of the Nataller newspaper offices were examples of acts of sabotage carried out contrary to instructions.
Mr Berrange then reminds Bruno Mtolo that he told the court during his examination-in-chief that after the Rivonia arrests he had talked with Billy Nair and found that the news of the arrests had been hard on him. Mr Berrange told Bruno Mtolo that he found this “rather interesting” considering that at the time the Rivonia arrests took place Billy Nair had already been arrested for some. Bruno Mtolo tried to backtrack and reframe his answer in a number of ways but he had been caught in a clear lie by Mr Berrange. Unfortunately for the defence, the lies and contradictions exposed in Bruno Mtolo’s evidence during his cross-examination did not prevent his testimony from tying all of the accused (except for James Kantor and Rusty Bernstein) to acts of sabotage and the planning of, and recruiting of troops for, an armed overthrow of the apartheid government.
Eventually Dr Yutar submitted to the court the leaflet alleged to have been created by Govan Mbeki and Ahmed Kathrada (Exhibit R.10). Mr Berrange took time to read the document over before deciding not to spend time dealing with it further. Instead, Mr Berrange asks Bruno Mtolo about his evidence regarding the Chief at Bergville’s involvement in acts of sabotage and storing weapons for guerrilla warfare. Once again, Bruno Mtolo claimed that, even though this Chief was not a communist, he felt that betraying him in his evidence was a service in benefit of the ANC.
Mr Berrange informs the court that this temporarily concluded his cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. However, before stepping down, Mr Berrange makes two statements to the court. The first statement was that Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein, would deny that he had ever taken a message from the High Command to the Durban Regional Command. The second statement concerned the difficulties the defence attorney, Mr Joffe, had faced over the vacation period in interviewing certain people in regard to matters that had been testified to by Bruno Mtolo. As many of these people were themselves standing trial at the time Mr Joffe was unable, on the orders of their attorney, to get any information regarding the facts testified to by Bruno Mtolo until such time as these people had been tired and either convicted or acquitted. Therefore, Mr Berrange said that the defence were likely to submit an application to the court to have Bruno Mtolo recalled at a later stage. Judge De Wet did not object to this but did say, “I take it you will have to take your chance of his being found if you want to recall him”.
Thereafter, Mr Bizos raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Bizos begins his cross-examination with a characteristic focus on the witness’s identification of certain accused during police interrogations as a 90 day detainee. Particular focus is placed at first on Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Mr Bizos leads Bruno Mtolo to admit that in his mind he was eager to give the police as much detail in his statement as possible in order to save both the ANC and himself.
Mr Bizos asks only a few questions regarding Bruno Mtolo’s arrest and interaction with the police before court and further cross-examination of this witness is reserved.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/1B/134b) (Vol.50/2A/135b) (Vol.50/2A/136b) (Vol.50/2A/137b) (Vol.50/2A/138b) (Vol.50/2A/139b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 16th January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/5).
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
Key Words
Key State Witness, Bruno Mtolo, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo and Harry Bambani
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo and Harry Bambani
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
Court proceedings began with a request from Dr Yutar that before the court is cleared for the cross-examination of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, he would like to first call eight witnesses, mostly business men and women, to give short testimonies. Judge De wet agreed with this suggestion and there was no objection from the defence. All of these witnesses gave evidence relating directly to Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and the interactions them had with him whilst operating under the alias Mr D. Williams.
The testimony of these witnesses painted a picture of Denis Goldberg, as Mr Williams, going to a number of companies and getting quotations and samples of materials which were used for the manufacturing of bombs, landmines, hand grenades, and other articles used for sabotage and guerrilla warfare. It was during the testimonies of these witnesses that the issue of identification caused by the lack of facial hair on Denis Goldberg in the dock arose once again.
Only two of this group of eight witnesses called did not give evidence of business interactions with Mr Williams and instead gave testimonies concerning vehicles parked at the Mountain View, Travallyn, and Rivonia properties.
Mr Berrange and Mr Fischer cross-examine a few of the above mentioned witnesses before Mr Berrange stated the cross-examination of Abel Mthembu. Abel Mthembu is only partially cross-examined on this day as Dr Yutar successfully applied to interrupt proceedings in order to deal with one additional witness who was meant to have testified that morning. As the defence had no objection the further cross-examination of Abel Mthembu was held over until the following day.
Witnesses Called
26th State Witness: Mrs Nola Batchelder – Housewife, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
Nola Batcheldar made a report to the Lindhurst police, on the 10th of September, 1963, that a vehicle with the number plate T.J. 116-355 had been parked in the same spot for two weeks. As a result of her report the car was removed the following day by the police. The car had been parked about four miles away from the Mountain View suburb.
Following an extremely brief questioning by Mr Krog, which elucidated the above information from Nola Batcheldar, Mr Fischer raised and commented that he could not see the purpose of this evidence. Mr Krog explained that the evidence was that this vehicle had links to the Rivonia and Mountain View properties and was abandoned at the location near Nola Batcheldar’s house.
Following this Mr Fischer states that there was no cross-examination at this stage. As Nola Batcheldar had to go care for her young children she was immediately released from the court and told that she may be asked to return at a later date.
No cross-examination was ultimately required.
27th State Witness: Herbert Hodes – Manager, Hubby’s Car Spares.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
As managing director of the firm Hubby’s Car Spares Herbert Hodes had dealings with Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, who wanted to buy caste iron. Herbert Hodes told Denis Goldberg that they did not sell such material to individuals, only to factories. A few months later, in June, 1963, Herbert Hodes was introduced to Denis Goldberg by Mr Katz who called him Mr Williams. After this Herbert Hodes learnt that Mr Williams was looking to by an engine for a Kombi and offered to sell him one.
Herbert Hodes charged Mr Williams for the engine and delivered it to him. In addition to a certain amount of cash he also received the old Kombi engine from Denis Goldberg. In concluding his examination-in-chief Herbert Hodes recalled that when Denis Goldberg had enquired about purchasing caste iron he had giving him a quote of about R18 to R20 per ton.
Cross-examination reserved.
28th State Witness: Theodorus Palus – Clerk, Johannesburg Licencing Department.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
As an employee of the Johannesburg City Council in the Licencing Department Theodorus Palus was used by the state to link certain vehicles to the persons, places, and companies implicated in the charges of this case. The first vehicle, an Austin van with the number plate T.J. 116-355, was said to have been registered in the name of Navian (Pty) Ltd, with the address Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and signed by V. Ezra as director of Navian (Pty) Ltd.
The second vehicle identified was registered under the number T.J. 145-279 and was a 1957 model Chevrolet owned by Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. The next vehicle, registered T.J. 142-838, was a 1960 model Volkswagen Kombi in the name of Don Williams (No. 33 of Exhibit B). Followed by a Vauxhall Velox, registered T.J. 173-728, in the name of Alexander Hepple, which was changed to T.W. 8619 on 6th of January, 1963 (No.32 in Exhibit B). Next was a Taunas car registered in the name of Michael Alan Harmel with the number T.J. 171-236. The final vehicle identified was another Volkswagen Komi, registered under the number T.J. 56959, under the name of Mrs. Ray Taibe Harmel, who was Michael Harmel’s wife.
Mr Fischer informs the court that there will probably be no cross-examination requested but the defence did not admit that the evidence given by this witness was admissible.
29th State Witness: Desmond Todd – Salesman, F.W. MacKenzie Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Desmond Todd, like the witness before him, recognised Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as Mr Williams. According to Desmond Todd Denis Goldberg had come into his office and enquired about purchasing “wooden shooks” for the purpose of making boxes. Desmond Todd and his colleagues drew up quotations and creating sample boxes for Mr Williams without any knowledge of the purpose these boxes were to be used for. A document submitted as Exhibit T. 3, a record of this correspondence between Mr William and F.W. MacKenzie Ltd, was said to have been found on the Travallyn.
Dr Yutar concludes by informing Desmond Todd that he may require him to come back at a later stage to see if the landmine found at Liliesleaf Farm made use of the same type of box he was involved in creating a sample of for Mr Williams. From the amount of timber Mr Williams was quoted for he would have been able to create 48 000 of these boxes.
Cross-examination reserved.
30th State Witness: Frederick Milburn – Manager, Phoenix Foundry.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frederick Milburn worked at a firm which manufactured and supplied general casting to the mining industry. Like the two witnesses who proceeded him, Frederick Milburn gave evidence of a Mr Williams requesting quotations and samples of objects which could be used for bombs, landmines, and other explosives used for sabotage. Frederick Milburn was required to produce a sketch (Exhibit 66) and a sample (Exhibit 12) of the castings Mr Williams said he would require a few hundred thousand of.
Dr Yutar informs Frederick Milburn that the state would be submitting to the court a book found in the dining room at Rivonia which had the name of his firm in it. In addition to this the book made reference to Bentonite, a chemical used to produce moulds, and Ash Brothers firm who were the main suppliers of this substance. Lastly, Dr Yutar asks Frederick Milburn to comment on two sketches submitted to the court, one of which he thought was a receiver of sand for mould making (Exhibit T. 5), and the other of which he could not identify (T. 6).
While this witness could not identify any of the accused in the dock, he did identify Denis Goldberg’s photograph in Exhibit D as being of Mr Williams.
Cross-examination reserved.
31st State Witness: Leon Ruff – Technical Manager, Aerflow (Pty) Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Similarly to the previous witness, Leon Ruff, was not confidently able to identify any of the accused in the dock but was confident the photograph 3 of Exhibit D was Mr Williams. Leon Ruff had been approached by Mr Williams in April, 1963, and asked to give a verbal quotation for a fan or a blower. Leon Ruff gave the quotation to Mr Williams and had little else by way of evidence to offer to the state.
Cross-examination reserved.
32nd State Witness: Franz Marabec – Manager, Bosworths Steel Structures (Pty) Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
As with most other witnesses on this day, Franz Marabec gave evidence about interactions he had had with Mr Williams. According to Franz Marabec he only spoke to Mr Williams for about five minutes in which time he told Mr Williams that his firm was too busy to make the small cupola (furnace for melting steel) he required. Franz Marabec then put Mr Williams in touch with Mrs Levanos who gave him a copy of the drawing of a cupola (Exhibit T. 7) which was also found at Travallyn.
No Cross-examination.
33rd State Witness: Mrs Anita Levanos – Draughtswoman, Bosworths Steel Structures (Pty) Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Anita Levanos confirmed that she, in her capacity as a draughtswoman at Bosworths firm, was instructed to provide Mr Williams with a drawing of a small cupola. Anita Levanos claimed to have some all of the drawings of cupolas the firm had to Mr Williams and made him a copy of their smallest-sized model. The drawing Anita Levanos had copied for Mr Williams was still too large for his requirements but he took it regardless and told her he would be taking it to another firm to be made up.
No Cross-examination.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
In cross-examining Abel Mthembu Mr Berrange paints a picture of widespread “restlessness” growing amongst Africans across the country at the time when Abel Mthembu returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963. Abel Mthembu confirms that this was the case adding “… Sikukuneland in 1963, the Transkei 1960, the schools got burnt down, buildings, and after that there were sporadic acts of violence in various parts all over the country”. Mr Berrange then puts it to Abel Mthembu that the MK had been created in order “to control and direct the violence that was then already taking place”.
This attempt to reframe the nature and purpose of MK was unsuccessful as Abel Mthembu insisted that, as far as he knew, the MK was established to carry out its own operations, those which the ANC could not carry out itself, not to carry on with violence that was already present in the Republic. However, Mr Berrange was able to reiterate the point that Abel Mthembu was told “on more than one occasion, that such violence as Umkonto directed, should not result in injury to people”.
Mr Berrange spent a significant amount of time establishing that Abel Mthembu considered himself to be a devoted member of the ANC and MK. This was evidenced by the fact that during the whole of his first 90 day detention in Marshal Square Prison Abel Mthembu refused to make any statement about the ANC or MK to the police. Abel Mthembu was released in August and re-arrested in October when Bruno Mtolo pointed him out to police at his home in Dube from where he was taken eventually to Langlaagte Prison, where he remained as a prisoner at the time of the trial.
Abel Mthembu claimed that “As a result of the fact that Bruno pointed me out, I realised that there was nothing more for me now to hide, because they evidently knew”. Once under arrest for the second time, Abel Mthembu claimed to have denied all knowledge of the ANC and MK for the first few days but ultimately decided to make a statement to the police.
Mr Berrange then draws attention to the instructions Abel Mthembu claimed to have been given by Govan Mbeki at Rivonia to go and meet with recruits in Germiston on the 4th, 11th, and 18th, of May, 1963. Abel Mthembu told the court that when he received these instructions from Mbeki they were given in “European language” because Abel Mthembu spoke Sesotho and Govan Mbeki spoke isiXhosa, which are not mutually understandable. Mr Berrange pushed extremely hard to get Abel Mthembu to admit that he could have potentially have spoken to Govan Mbeki in isiZulu or another African language in the Thatched Cottage. It was important for Mr Berrange to get this, albeit hesitant, answer from Abel Mthembu as it was essential for justifying Ahmed Kathrada’s claim that he, not understanding African languages, was never involved in or paying attention to any conversations at Rivonia conducted in such languages.
Further cross-examination reserved.
27th State Witness: Herbert Hodes – Manager, Hubby’s Car Spares. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
Mr Fischer comments that the witness was unable to provide any exact dates in his evidence and asked if he had any notes stored elsewhere detailing the dates of the events he spoke of. Herbert Hodes informed the court that there were notes of transactions at his office but Mr Fischer stated that these would not necessarily help identify the date one which he first met Mr Williams who he claimed to be Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg. Mr Fischer said this was important because they had evidence that Denis Goldberg was not in Johannesburg during April, 1963, and thus could not have been this person if the meeting took place during that month. Herbert Hodes told Mr Fischer that he simply could not confidently recall the date and was asked no further questions.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar merely confirms that the witness has no dates for this first meeting.
28th State Witness: Theodorus Palus – Clerk, Johannesburg Licencing Department. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief continued by Mr Krog.
Theodorus Palus was recalled to hand in photo static copies of the sets of documents associated with each of the vehicles identified and discussed during his first appearance on this day. They are submitted to the court, in the order they were originally discussed, as Exhibits HH, JJ, KK, LL, MM, and NN.
No cross-examination.
30th State Witness: Frederick Milburn – Manager, Phoenix Foundry. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief continued by Dr Yutar.
Frederick Milburn was recalled in order to provide expert insight into a number of sketches and diagrams found at Travallyn. These sketches and diagrams (Exhibits T. 8, T. 9, and T. 10, in particular) concerned cupolas, castings, and other materials which Frederick Milburn claimed could have been used for the manufacturing of landmines, bombs, and other items to be used for sabotage.
No cross-examination.
31st State Witness: Leon Ruff – Technical Manager, Aerflow (Pty) Ltd. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
Mr Fischer asks Leon Ruff the same question he put to Herbert Hodes – if he had any notes of the dates which he referred to in his evidence-in-chief. As with Herbert Hodes, Leon Ruff did not have any note of the exact date and said that his first meeting with Mr Williams could have been at the end of May or the beginning of June, 1963.
No re-examination.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg. (Recalled).
Further cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Mr Berrange returns attention to the occasion on which Abel Mthembu introduced Bruno Mtolo to Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilson Mkwyi, and asked Abel Mthembu if Walter Sisulu appeared to be in a hurry to leave. Abel Mthembu said that no such indication was given to him whilst he was in the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Berrange then questioned Abel Mthembu about the instructions he had been given by Govan Mbeki regarding meeting recruits at Germiston. At this point Abel Mthembu mentioned for the first time that the intention was for him to meet these recruits and take them to Andrew Mlangeni. When asked several times by Mr Berrange if he was ever concerned when the groups of recruits he was instructed to meet never arrived, Abel Mthembu simply responded that he was not very concerned at all because this had happened on the very first occasion. When asked why he had waited at least two weeks before reporting to Govan Mbeki at the High Command that the last batch of recruits had not arrived as instructed, Abel Mthembu gave a half-hearted response indicating that he just wasn’t worried about it.
Mr Berrange then put it to Abel Mthembu, “that the reason that [he] never made any report of this sort, to Mbeki, is due to the fact that you never received any such instructions from Mbeki, whoever else you might have received them from”. Abel Mthembu responded that he had received the instructions from Govan Mbeki and this was evidenced by the fact that Bruno Mtolo asked him why these recruits had not been fetched. Mr Berrange then responded, “You see that leads me to the other point – it’s that this discussion which you say that you had with Mbeki on the occasion when you took Mtolo, Bruno, to Mbeki has not been testified to at all by Bruno: He never said one word of it!”.
Another claim made by Abel Mthembu for the very first time during his examination-in-chief was that Jack Hodgson had told him that the High Command was at Rivonia. Mr Krog attempted to dispute this point but Mr Berrange argued that the inconsistency in Abel Mthembu’s answers in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination were indications that he was either confused or tailoring his evidence to fit with that of other state witnesses.
The witness is free to go and free from prosecution as far as the court was concerned.
No re-examination.
Court is adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/5A/9c) (Vol.50/5A/10c) (Vol.50/5A/11c) (Vol.50/5A/12c) (Vol.50/5A/13c) (Vol.50/5B/14c) (Vol.50/5B/15c) (Vol.50/5B/16c) (Vol.50/5B/17c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 22nd January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Denis Goldberg, Mr Williams, Sabotage, Explosives, MK, Vehicles.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Bruno Mtolo and Harry Bambani
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Harry Bambani and Caswell Zikile Mboxele
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Harry Bambani and Caswell Zikile Mboxele
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Harry Bambani and Caswell Zikile Mboxele
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Caswell Zikile Mboxele
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Caswell Zikile Mboxele
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Caswell Zikile Mboxele
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Caswell Zikile Mboxele
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Caswell Zikile Mboxele
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Caswell Zikile Mboxele
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Caswell Zikile Mboxele
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Caswell Zikile Mboxele
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Caswell Zikile Mboxele
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Caswell Zikile Mboxele and Isaac Rani
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Caswell Zikile Mboxele and Isaac Rani
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Caswell Zikile Mboxele and Isaac Rani
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Isaac Rani and Piet Coetzee
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Isaac Rani and Piet Coetzee
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Isaac Rani and Piet Coetzee
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Petrus Johannes Du Preez
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Petrus Johannes Du Preez
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Petrus Johannes Du Preez
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Petrus Johannes Du Preez
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Petrus Johannes Du Preez
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Petrus Johannes Du Preez
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Petrus Johannes Du Preez
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Petrus Johannes Du Preez
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Petrus Johannes Du Preez
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Petrus Johannes Du Preez
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Petrus Johannes Du Preez
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Petrus Johannes Du Preez
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Petrus Johannes Du Preez
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Petrus Johannes Du Preez
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Petrus Johannes Du Preez
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Petrus Johannes Du Preez
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Petrus Johannes Du Preez
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Petrus Johannes Du Preez
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Petrus Johannes Du Preez and Patrick Abel Mthembu
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Petrus Johannes Du Preez and Patrick Abel Mthembu
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Petrus Johannes Du Preez and Patrick Abel Mthembu
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Patrick Abel Mthembu
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Patrick Abel Mthembu
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Patrick Abel Mthembu
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Patrick Abel Mthembu
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Patrick Abel Mthembu
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Patrick Abel Mthembu
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Patrick Abel Mthembu
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Patrick Abel Mthembu
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Patrick Abel Mthembu
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Patrick Abel Mthembu
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Patrick Abel Mthembu
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Patrick Abel Mthembu
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Patrick Abel Mthembu
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Patrick Abel Mthembu
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Patrick Abel Mthembu
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Theodoras Palos, Desmond Todd and Frederick Milburg
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Theodoras Palus, Desmond Todd and Frederick Milburg
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
Court proceedings began with a request from Dr Yutar that before the court is cleared for the cross-examination of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, he would like to first call eight witnesses, mostly business men and women, to give short testimonies. Judge De wet agreed with this suggestion and there was no objection from the defence. All of these witnesses gave evidence relating directly to Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and the interactions them had with him whilst operating under the alias Mr D. Williams.
The testimony of these witnesses painted a picture of Denis Goldberg, as Mr Williams, going to a number of companies and getting quotations and samples of materials which were used for the manufacturing of bombs, landmines, hand grenades, and other articles used for sabotage and guerrilla warfare. It was during the testimonies of these witnesses that the issue of identification caused by the lack of facial hair on Denis Goldberg in the dock arose once again.
Only two of this group of eight witnesses called did not give evidence of business interactions with Mr Williams and instead gave testimonies concerning vehicles parked at the Mountain View, Travallyn, and Rivonia properties.
Mr Berrange and Mr Fischer cross-examine a few of the above mentioned witnesses before Mr Berrange stated the cross-examination of Abel Mthembu. Abel Mthembu is only partially cross-examined on this day as Dr Yutar successfully applied to interrupt proceedings in order to deal with one additional witness who was meant to have testified that morning. As the defence had no objection the further cross-examination of Abel Mthembu was held over until the following day.
Witnesses Called
26th State Witness: Mrs Nola Batchelder – Housewife, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
Nola Batcheldar made a report to the Lindhurst police, on the 10th of September, 1963, that a vehicle with the number plate T.J. 116-355 had been parked in the same spot for two weeks. As a result of her report the car was removed the following day by the police. The car had been parked about four miles away from the Mountain View suburb.
Following an extremely brief questioning by Mr Krog, which elucidated the above information from Nola Batcheldar, Mr Fischer raised and commented that he could not see the purpose of this evidence. Mr Krog explained that the evidence was that this vehicle had links to the Rivonia and Mountain View properties and was abandoned at the location near Nola Batcheldar’s house.
Following this Mr Fischer states that there was no cross-examination at this stage. As Nola Batcheldar had to go care for her young children she was immediately released from the court and told that she may be asked to return at a later date.
No cross-examination was ultimately required.
27th State Witness: Herbert Hodes – Manager, Hubby’s Car Spares.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
As managing director of the firm Hubby’s Car Spares Herbert Hodes had dealings with Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, who wanted to buy caste iron. Herbert Hodes told Denis Goldberg that they did not sell such material to individuals, only to factories. A few months later, in June, 1963, Herbert Hodes was introduced to Denis Goldberg by Mr Katz who called him Mr Williams. After this Herbert Hodes learnt that Mr Williams was looking to by an engine for a Kombi and offered to sell him one.
Herbert Hodes charged Mr Williams for the engine and delivered it to him. In addition to a certain amount of cash he also received the old Kombi engine from Denis Goldberg. In concluding his examination-in-chief Herbert Hodes recalled that when Denis Goldberg had enquired about purchasing caste iron he had giving him a quote of about R18 to R20 per ton.
Cross-examination reserved.
28th State Witness: Theodorus Palus – Clerk, Johannesburg Licencing Department.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
As an employee of the Johannesburg City Council in the Licencing Department Theodorus Palus was used by the state to link certain vehicles to the persons, places, and companies implicated in the charges of this case. The first vehicle, an Austin van with the number plate T.J. 116-355, was said to have been registered in the name of Navian (Pty) Ltd, with the address Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and signed by V. Ezra as director of Navian (Pty) Ltd.
The second vehicle identified was registered under the number T.J. 145-279 and was a 1957 model Chevrolet owned by Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. The next vehicle, registered T.J. 142-838, was a 1960 model Volkswagen Kombi in the name of Don Williams (No. 33 of Exhibit B). Followed by a Vauxhall Velox, registered T.J. 173-728, in the name of Alexander Hepple, which was changed to T.W. 8619 on 6th of January, 1963 (No.32 in Exhibit B). Next was a Taunas car registered in the name of Michael Alan Harmel with the number T.J. 171-236. The final vehicle identified was another Volkswagen Komi, registered under the number T.J. 56959, under the name of Mrs. Ray Taibe Harmel, who was Michael Harmel’s wife.
Mr Fischer informs the court that there will probably be no cross-examination requested but the defence did not admit that the evidence given by this witness was admissible.
29th State Witness: Desmond Todd – Salesman, F.W. MacKenzie Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Desmond Todd, like the witness before him, recognised Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as Mr Williams. According to Desmond Todd Denis Goldberg had come into his office and enquired about purchasing “wooden shooks” for the purpose of making boxes. Desmond Todd and his colleagues drew up quotations and creating sample boxes for Mr Williams without any knowledge of the purpose these boxes were to be used for. A document submitted as Exhibit T. 3, a record of this correspondence between Mr William and F.W. MacKenzie Ltd, was said to have been found on the Travallyn.
Dr Yutar concludes by informing Desmond Todd that he may require him to come back at a later stage to see if the landmine found at Liliesleaf Farm made use of the same type of box he was involved in creating a sample of for Mr Williams. From the amount of timber Mr Williams was quoted for he would have been able to create 48 000 of these boxes.
Cross-examination reserved.
30th State Witness: Frederick Milburn – Manager, Phoenix Foundry.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frederick Milburn worked at a firm which manufactured and supplied general casting to the mining industry. Like the two witnesses who proceeded him, Frederick Milburn gave evidence of a Mr Williams requesting quotations and samples of objects which could be used for bombs, landmines, and other explosives used for sabotage. Frederick Milburn was required to produce a sketch (Exhibit 66) and a sample (Exhibit 12) of the castings Mr Williams said he would require a few hundred thousand of.
Dr Yutar informs Frederick Milburn that the state would be submitting to the court a book found in the dining room at Rivonia which had the name of his firm in it. In addition to this the book made reference to Bentonite, a chemical used to produce moulds, and Ash Brothers firm who were the main suppliers of this substance. Lastly, Dr Yutar asks Frederick Milburn to comment on two sketches submitted to the court, one of which he thought was a receiver of sand for mould making (Exhibit T. 5), and the other of which he could not identify (T. 6).
While this witness could not identify any of the accused in the dock, he did identify Denis Goldberg’s photograph in Exhibit D as being of Mr Williams.
Cross-examination reserved.
31st State Witness: Leon Ruff – Technical Manager, Aerflow (Pty) Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Similarly to the previous witness, Leon Ruff, was not confidently able to identify any of the accused in the dock but was confident the photograph 3 of Exhibit D was Mr Williams. Leon Ruff had been approached by Mr Williams in April, 1963, and asked to give a verbal quotation for a fan or a blower. Leon Ruff gave the quotation to Mr Williams and had little else by way of evidence to offer to the state.
Cross-examination reserved.
32nd State Witness: Franz Marabec – Manager, Bosworths Steel Structures (Pty) Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
As with most other witnesses on this day, Franz Marabec gave evidence about interactions he had had with Mr Williams. According to Franz Marabec he only spoke to Mr Williams for about five minutes in which time he told Mr Williams that his firm was too busy to make the small cupola (furnace for melting steel) he required. Franz Marabec then put Mr Williams in touch with Mrs Levanos who gave him a copy of the drawing of a cupola (Exhibit T. 7) which was also found at Travallyn.
No Cross-examination.
33rd State Witness: Mrs Anita Levanos – Draughtswoman, Bosworths Steel Structures (Pty) Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Anita Levanos confirmed that she, in her capacity as a draughtswoman at Bosworths firm, was instructed to provide Mr Williams with a drawing of a small cupola. Anita Levanos claimed to have some all of the drawings of cupolas the firm had to Mr Williams and made him a copy of their smallest-sized model. The drawing Anita Levanos had copied for Mr Williams was still too large for his requirements but he took it regardless and told her he would be taking it to another firm to be made up.
No Cross-examination.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
In cross-examining Abel Mthembu Mr Berrange paints a picture of widespread “restlessness” growing amongst Africans across the country at the time when Abel Mthembu returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963. Abel Mthembu confirms that this was the case adding “… Sikukuneland in 1963, the Transkei 1960, the schools got burnt down, buildings, and after that there were sporadic acts of violence in various parts all over the country”. Mr Berrange then puts it to Abel Mthembu that the MK had been created in order “to control and direct the violence that was then already taking place”.
This attempt to reframe the nature and purpose of MK was unsuccessful as Abel Mthembu insisted that, as far as he knew, the MK was established to carry out its own operations, those which the ANC could not carry out itself, not to carry on with violence that was already present in the Republic. However, Mr Berrange was able to reiterate the point that Abel Mthembu was told “on more than one occasion, that such violence as Umkonto directed, should not result in injury to people”.
Mr Berrange spent a significant amount of time establishing that Abel Mthembu considered himself to be a devoted member of the ANC and MK. This was evidenced by the fact that during the whole of his first 90 day detention in Marshal Square Prison Abel Mthembu refused to make any statement about the ANC or MK to the police. Abel Mthembu was released in August and re-arrested in October when Bruno Mtolo pointed him out to police at his home in Dube from where he was taken eventually to Langlaagte Prison, where he remained as a prisoner at the time of the trial.
Abel Mthembu claimed that “As a result of the fact that Bruno pointed me out, I realised that there was nothing more for me now to hide, because they evidently knew”. Once under arrest for the second time, Abel Mthembu claimed to have denied all knowledge of the ANC and MK for the first few days but ultimately decided to make a statement to the police.
Mr Berrange then draws attention to the instructions Abel Mthembu claimed to have been given by Govan Mbeki at Rivonia to go and meet with recruits in Germiston on the 4th, 11th, and 18th, of May, 1963. Abel Mthembu told the court that when he received these instructions from Mbeki they were given in “European language” because Abel Mthembu spoke Sesotho and Govan Mbeki spoke isiXhosa, which are not mutually understandable. Mr Berrange pushed extremely hard to get Abel Mthembu to admit that he could have potentially have spoken to Govan Mbeki in isiZulu or another African language in the Thatched Cottage. It was important for Mr Berrange to get this, albeit hesitant, answer from Abel Mthembu as it was essential for justifying Ahmed Kathrada’s claim that he, not understanding African languages, was never involved in or paying attention to any conversations at Rivonia conducted in such languages.
Further cross-examination reserved.
27th State Witness: Herbert Hodes – Manager, Hubby’s Car Spares. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
Mr Fischer comments that the witness was unable to provide any exact dates in his evidence and asked if he had any notes stored elsewhere detailing the dates of the events he spoke of. Herbert Hodes informed the court that there were notes of transactions at his office but Mr Fischer stated that these would not necessarily help identify the date one which he first met Mr Williams who he claimed to be Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg. Mr Fischer said this was important because they had evidence that Denis Goldberg was not in Johannesburg during April, 1963, and thus could not have been this person if the meeting took place during that month. Herbert Hodes told Mr Fischer that he simply could not confidently recall the date and was asked no further questions.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar merely confirms that the witness has no dates for this first meeting.
28th State Witness: Theodorus Palus – Clerk, Johannesburg Licencing Department. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief continued by Mr Krog.
Theodorus Palus was recalled to hand in photo static copies of the sets of documents associated with each of the vehicles identified and discussed during his first appearance on this day. They are submitted to the court, in the order they were originally discussed, as Exhibits HH, JJ, KK, LL, MM, and NN.
No cross-examination.
30th State Witness: Frederick Milburn – Manager, Phoenix Foundry. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief continued by Dr Yutar.
Frederick Milburn was recalled in order to provide expert insight into a number of sketches and diagrams found at Travallyn. These sketches and diagrams (Exhibits T. 8, T. 9, and T. 10, in particular) concerned cupolas, castings, and other materials which Frederick Milburn claimed could have been used for the manufacturing of landmines, bombs, and other items to be used for sabotage.
No cross-examination.
31st State Witness: Leon Ruff – Technical Manager, Aerflow (Pty) Ltd. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
Mr Fischer asks Leon Ruff the same question he put to Herbert Hodes – if he had any notes of the dates which he referred to in his evidence-in-chief. As with Herbert Hodes, Leon Ruff did not have any note of the exact date and said that his first meeting with Mr Williams could have been at the end of May or the beginning of June, 1963.
No re-examination.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg. (Recalled).
Further cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Mr Berrange returns attention to the occasion on which Abel Mthembu introduced Bruno Mtolo to Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilson Mkwyi, and asked Abel Mthembu if Walter Sisulu appeared to be in a hurry to leave. Abel Mthembu said that no such indication was given to him whilst he was in the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Berrange then questioned Abel Mthembu about the instructions he had been given by Govan Mbeki regarding meeting recruits at Germiston. At this point Abel Mthembu mentioned for the first time that the intention was for him to meet these recruits and take them to Andrew Mlangeni. When asked several times by Mr Berrange if he was ever concerned when the groups of recruits he was instructed to meet never arrived, Abel Mthembu simply responded that he was not very concerned at all because this had happened on the very first occasion. When asked why he had waited at least two weeks before reporting to Govan Mbeki at the High Command that the last batch of recruits had not arrived as instructed, Abel Mthembu gave a half-hearted response indicating that he just wasn’t worried about it.
Mr Berrange then put it to Abel Mthembu, “that the reason that [he] never made any report of this sort, to Mbeki, is due to the fact that you never received any such instructions from Mbeki, whoever else you might have received them from”. Abel Mthembu responded that he had received the instructions from Govan Mbeki and this was evidenced by the fact that Bruno Mtolo asked him why these recruits had not been fetched. Mr Berrange then responded, “You see that leads me to the other point – it’s that this discussion which you say that you had with Mbeki on the occasion when you took Mtolo, Bruno, to Mbeki has not been testified to at all by Bruno: He never said one word of it!”.
Another claim made by Abel Mthembu for the very first time during his examination-in-chief was that Jack Hodgson had told him that the High Command was at Rivonia. Mr Krog attempted to dispute this point but Mr Berrange argued that the inconsistency in Abel Mthembu’s answers in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination were indications that he was either confused or tailoring his evidence to fit with that of other state witnesses.
The witness is free to go and free from prosecution as far as the court was concerned.
No re-examination.
Court is adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/5A/9c) (Vol.50/5A/10c) (Vol.50/5A/11c) (Vol.50/5A/12c) (Vol.50/5A/13c) (Vol.50/5B/14c) (Vol.50/5B/15c) (Vol.50/5B/16c) (Vol.50/5B/17c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 22nd January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Denis Goldberg, Mr Williams, Sabotage, Explosives, MK, Vehicles.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Theodoras Palos, Desmond Todd and Frederick Milburg
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Frederick Milburg and Leon Ruff
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Frederick Milburg and Leon Ruff
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
Court proceedings began with a request from Dr Yutar that before the court is cleared for the cross-examination of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, he would like to first call eight witnesses, mostly business men and women, to give short testimonies. Judge De wet agreed with this suggestion and there was no objection from the defence. All of these witnesses gave evidence relating directly to Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and the interactions them had with him whilst operating under the alias Mr D. Williams.
The testimony of these witnesses painted a picture of Denis Goldberg, as Mr Williams, going to a number of companies and getting quotations and samples of materials which were used for the manufacturing of bombs, landmines, hand grenades, and other articles used for sabotage and guerrilla warfare. It was during the testimonies of these witnesses that the issue of identification caused by the lack of facial hair on Denis Goldberg in the dock arose once again.
Only two of this group of eight witnesses called did not give evidence of business interactions with Mr Williams and instead gave testimonies concerning vehicles parked at the Mountain View, Travallyn, and Rivonia properties.
Mr Berrange and Mr Fischer cross-examine a few of the above mentioned witnesses before Mr Berrange stated the cross-examination of Abel Mthembu. Abel Mthembu is only partially cross-examined on this day as Dr Yutar successfully applied to interrupt proceedings in order to deal with one additional witness who was meant to have testified that morning. As the defence had no objection the further cross-examination of Abel Mthembu was held over until the following day.
Witnesses Called
26th State Witness: Mrs Nola Batchelder – Housewife, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
Nola Batcheldar made a report to the Lindhurst police, on the 10th of September, 1963, that a vehicle with the number plate T.J. 116-355 had been parked in the same spot for two weeks. As a result of her report the car was removed the following day by the police. The car had been parked about four miles away from the Mountain View suburb.
Following an extremely brief questioning by Mr Krog, which elucidated the above information from Nola Batcheldar, Mr Fischer raised and commented that he could not see the purpose of this evidence. Mr Krog explained that the evidence was that this vehicle had links to the Rivonia and Mountain View properties and was abandoned at the location near Nola Batcheldar’s house.
Following this Mr Fischer states that there was no cross-examination at this stage. As Nola Batcheldar had to go care for her young children she was immediately released from the court and told that she may be asked to return at a later date.
No cross-examination was ultimately required.
27th State Witness: Herbert Hodes – Manager, Hubby’s Car Spares.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
As managing director of the firm Hubby’s Car Spares Herbert Hodes had dealings with Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, who wanted to buy caste iron. Herbert Hodes told Denis Goldberg that they did not sell such material to individuals, only to factories. A few months later, in June, 1963, Herbert Hodes was introduced to Denis Goldberg by Mr Katz who called him Mr Williams. After this Herbert Hodes learnt that Mr Williams was looking to by an engine for a Kombi and offered to sell him one.
Herbert Hodes charged Mr Williams for the engine and delivered it to him. In addition to a certain amount of cash he also received the old Kombi engine from Denis Goldberg. In concluding his examination-in-chief Herbert Hodes recalled that when Denis Goldberg had enquired about purchasing caste iron he had giving him a quote of about R18 to R20 per ton.
Cross-examination reserved.
28th State Witness: Theodorus Palus – Clerk, Johannesburg Licencing Department.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
As an employee of the Johannesburg City Council in the Licencing Department Theodorus Palus was used by the state to link certain vehicles to the persons, places, and companies implicated in the charges of this case. The first vehicle, an Austin van with the number plate T.J. 116-355, was said to have been registered in the name of Navian (Pty) Ltd, with the address Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and signed by V. Ezra as director of Navian (Pty) Ltd.
The second vehicle identified was registered under the number T.J. 145-279 and was a 1957 model Chevrolet owned by Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. The next vehicle, registered T.J. 142-838, was a 1960 model Volkswagen Kombi in the name of Don Williams (No. 33 of Exhibit B). Followed by a Vauxhall Velox, registered T.J. 173-728, in the name of Alexander Hepple, which was changed to T.W. 8619 on 6th of January, 1963 (No.32 in Exhibit B). Next was a Taunas car registered in the name of Michael Alan Harmel with the number T.J. 171-236. The final vehicle identified was another Volkswagen Komi, registered under the number T.J. 56959, under the name of Mrs. Ray Taibe Harmel, who was Michael Harmel’s wife.
Mr Fischer informs the court that there will probably be no cross-examination requested but the defence did not admit that the evidence given by this witness was admissible.
29th State Witness: Desmond Todd – Salesman, F.W. MacKenzie Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Desmond Todd, like the witness before him, recognised Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as Mr Williams. According to Desmond Todd Denis Goldberg had come into his office and enquired about purchasing “wooden shooks” for the purpose of making boxes. Desmond Todd and his colleagues drew up quotations and creating sample boxes for Mr Williams without any knowledge of the purpose these boxes were to be used for. A document submitted as Exhibit T. 3, a record of this correspondence between Mr William and F.W. MacKenzie Ltd, was said to have been found on the Travallyn.
Dr Yutar concludes by informing Desmond Todd that he may require him to come back at a later stage to see if the landmine found at Liliesleaf Farm made use of the same type of box he was involved in creating a sample of for Mr Williams. From the amount of timber Mr Williams was quoted for he would have been able to create 48 000 of these boxes.
Cross-examination reserved.
30th State Witness: Frederick Milburn – Manager, Phoenix Foundry.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frederick Milburn worked at a firm which manufactured and supplied general casting to the mining industry. Like the two witnesses who proceeded him, Frederick Milburn gave evidence of a Mr Williams requesting quotations and samples of objects which could be used for bombs, landmines, and other explosives used for sabotage. Frederick Milburn was required to produce a sketch (Exhibit 66) and a sample (Exhibit 12) of the castings Mr Williams said he would require a few hundred thousand of.
Dr Yutar informs Frederick Milburn that the state would be submitting to the court a book found in the dining room at Rivonia which had the name of his firm in it. In addition to this the book made reference to Bentonite, a chemical used to produce moulds, and Ash Brothers firm who were the main suppliers of this substance. Lastly, Dr Yutar asks Frederick Milburn to comment on two sketches submitted to the court, one of which he thought was a receiver of sand for mould making (Exhibit T. 5), and the other of which he could not identify (T. 6).
While this witness could not identify any of the accused in the dock, he did identify Denis Goldberg’s photograph in Exhibit D as being of Mr Williams.
Cross-examination reserved.
31st State Witness: Leon Ruff – Technical Manager, Aerflow (Pty) Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Similarly to the previous witness, Leon Ruff, was not confidently able to identify any of the accused in the dock but was confident the photograph 3 of Exhibit D was Mr Williams. Leon Ruff had been approached by Mr Williams in April, 1963, and asked to give a verbal quotation for a fan or a blower. Leon Ruff gave the quotation to Mr Williams and had little else by way of evidence to offer to the state.
Cross-examination reserved.
32nd State Witness: Franz Marabec – Manager, Bosworths Steel Structures (Pty) Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
As with most other witnesses on this day, Franz Marabec gave evidence about interactions he had had with Mr Williams. According to Franz Marabec he only spoke to Mr Williams for about five minutes in which time he told Mr Williams that his firm was too busy to make the small cupola (furnace for melting steel) he required. Franz Marabec then put Mr Williams in touch with Mrs Levanos who gave him a copy of the drawing of a cupola (Exhibit T. 7) which was also found at Travallyn.
No Cross-examination.
33rd State Witness: Mrs Anita Levanos – Draughtswoman, Bosworths Steel Structures (Pty) Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Anita Levanos confirmed that she, in her capacity as a draughtswoman at Bosworths firm, was instructed to provide Mr Williams with a drawing of a small cupola. Anita Levanos claimed to have some all of the drawings of cupolas the firm had to Mr Williams and made him a copy of their smallest-sized model. The drawing Anita Levanos had copied for Mr Williams was still too large for his requirements but he took it regardless and told her he would be taking it to another firm to be made up.
No Cross-examination.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
In cross-examining Abel Mthembu Mr Berrange paints a picture of widespread “restlessness” growing amongst Africans across the country at the time when Abel Mthembu returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963. Abel Mthembu confirms that this was the case adding “… Sikukuneland in 1963, the Transkei 1960, the schools got burnt down, buildings, and after that there were sporadic acts of violence in various parts all over the country”. Mr Berrange then puts it to Abel Mthembu that the MK had been created in order “to control and direct the violence that was then already taking place”.
This attempt to reframe the nature and purpose of MK was unsuccessful as Abel Mthembu insisted that, as far as he knew, the MK was established to carry out its own operations, those which the ANC could not carry out itself, not to carry on with violence that was already present in the Republic. However, Mr Berrange was able to reiterate the point that Abel Mthembu was told “on more than one occasion, that such violence as Umkonto directed, should not result in injury to people”.
Mr Berrange spent a significant amount of time establishing that Abel Mthembu considered himself to be a devoted member of the ANC and MK. This was evidenced by the fact that during the whole of his first 90 day detention in Marshal Square Prison Abel Mthembu refused to make any statement about the ANC or MK to the police. Abel Mthembu was released in August and re-arrested in October when Bruno Mtolo pointed him out to police at his home in Dube from where he was taken eventually to Langlaagte Prison, where he remained as a prisoner at the time of the trial.
Abel Mthembu claimed that “As a result of the fact that Bruno pointed me out, I realised that there was nothing more for me now to hide, because they evidently knew”. Once under arrest for the second time, Abel Mthembu claimed to have denied all knowledge of the ANC and MK for the first few days but ultimately decided to make a statement to the police.
Mr Berrange then draws attention to the instructions Abel Mthembu claimed to have been given by Govan Mbeki at Rivonia to go and meet with recruits in Germiston on the 4th, 11th, and 18th, of May, 1963. Abel Mthembu told the court that when he received these instructions from Mbeki they were given in “European language” because Abel Mthembu spoke Sesotho and Govan Mbeki spoke isiXhosa, which are not mutually understandable. Mr Berrange pushed extremely hard to get Abel Mthembu to admit that he could have potentially have spoken to Govan Mbeki in isiZulu or another African language in the Thatched Cottage. It was important for Mr Berrange to get this, albeit hesitant, answer from Abel Mthembu as it was essential for justifying Ahmed Kathrada’s claim that he, not understanding African languages, was never involved in or paying attention to any conversations at Rivonia conducted in such languages.
Further cross-examination reserved.
27th State Witness: Herbert Hodes – Manager, Hubby’s Car Spares. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
Mr Fischer comments that the witness was unable to provide any exact dates in his evidence and asked if he had any notes stored elsewhere detailing the dates of the events he spoke of. Herbert Hodes informed the court that there were notes of transactions at his office but Mr Fischer stated that these would not necessarily help identify the date one which he first met Mr Williams who he claimed to be Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg. Mr Fischer said this was important because they had evidence that Denis Goldberg was not in Johannesburg during April, 1963, and thus could not have been this person if the meeting took place during that month. Herbert Hodes told Mr Fischer that he simply could not confidently recall the date and was asked no further questions.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar merely confirms that the witness has no dates for this first meeting.
28th State Witness: Theodorus Palus – Clerk, Johannesburg Licencing Department. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief continued by Mr Krog.
Theodorus Palus was recalled to hand in photo static copies of the sets of documents associated with each of the vehicles identified and discussed during his first appearance on this day. They are submitted to the court, in the order they were originally discussed, as Exhibits HH, JJ, KK, LL, MM, and NN.
No cross-examination.
30th State Witness: Frederick Milburn – Manager, Phoenix Foundry. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief continued by Dr Yutar.
Frederick Milburn was recalled in order to provide expert insight into a number of sketches and diagrams found at Travallyn. These sketches and diagrams (Exhibits T. 8, T. 9, and T. 10, in particular) concerned cupolas, castings, and other materials which Frederick Milburn claimed could have been used for the manufacturing of landmines, bombs, and other items to be used for sabotage.
No cross-examination.
31st State Witness: Leon Ruff – Technical Manager, Aerflow (Pty) Ltd. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
Mr Fischer asks Leon Ruff the same question he put to Herbert Hodes – if he had any notes of the dates which he referred to in his evidence-in-chief. As with Herbert Hodes, Leon Ruff did not have any note of the exact date and said that his first meeting with Mr Williams could have been at the end of May or the beginning of June, 1963.
No re-examination.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg. (Recalled).
Further cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Mr Berrange returns attention to the occasion on which Abel Mthembu introduced Bruno Mtolo to Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilson Mkwyi, and asked Abel Mthembu if Walter Sisulu appeared to be in a hurry to leave. Abel Mthembu said that no such indication was given to him whilst he was in the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Berrange then questioned Abel Mthembu about the instructions he had been given by Govan Mbeki regarding meeting recruits at Germiston. At this point Abel Mthembu mentioned for the first time that the intention was for him to meet these recruits and take them to Andrew Mlangeni. When asked several times by Mr Berrange if he was ever concerned when the groups of recruits he was instructed to meet never arrived, Abel Mthembu simply responded that he was not very concerned at all because this had happened on the very first occasion. When asked why he had waited at least two weeks before reporting to Govan Mbeki at the High Command that the last batch of recruits had not arrived as instructed, Abel Mthembu gave a half-hearted response indicating that he just wasn’t worried about it.
Mr Berrange then put it to Abel Mthembu, “that the reason that [he] never made any report of this sort, to Mbeki, is due to the fact that you never received any such instructions from Mbeki, whoever else you might have received them from”. Abel Mthembu responded that he had received the instructions from Govan Mbeki and this was evidenced by the fact that Bruno Mtolo asked him why these recruits had not been fetched. Mr Berrange then responded, “You see that leads me to the other point – it’s that this discussion which you say that you had with Mbeki on the occasion when you took Mtolo, Bruno, to Mbeki has not been testified to at all by Bruno: He never said one word of it!”.
Another claim made by Abel Mthembu for the very first time during his examination-in-chief was that Jack Hodgson had told him that the High Command was at Rivonia. Mr Krog attempted to dispute this point but Mr Berrange argued that the inconsistency in Abel Mthembu’s answers in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination were indications that he was either confused or tailoring his evidence to fit with that of other state witnesses.
The witness is free to go and free from prosecution as far as the court was concerned.
No re-examination.
Court is adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/5A/9c) (Vol.50/5A/10c) (Vol.50/5A/11c) (Vol.50/5A/12c) (Vol.50/5A/13c) (Vol.50/5B/14c) (Vol.50/5B/15c) (Vol.50/5B/16c) (Vol.50/5B/17c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 22nd January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Denis Goldberg, Mr Williams, Sabotage, Explosives, MK, Vehicles.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Frederick Milburg, and Leon Ruff
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Anita
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Frederick Milburg and Leon Ruff
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
Court proceedings began with a request from Dr Yutar that before the court is cleared for the cross-examination of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, he would like to first call eight witnesses, mostly business men and women, to give short testimonies. Judge De wet agreed with this suggestion and there was no objection from the defence. All of these witnesses gave evidence relating directly to Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and the interactions them had with him whilst operating under the alias Mr D. Williams.
The testimony of these witnesses painted a picture of Denis Goldberg, as Mr Williams, going to a number of companies and getting quotations and samples of materials which were used for the manufacturing of bombs, landmines, hand grenades, and other articles used for sabotage and guerrilla warfare. It was during the testimonies of these witnesses that the issue of identification caused by the lack of facial hair on Denis Goldberg in the dock arose once again.
Only two of this group of eight witnesses called did not give evidence of business interactions with Mr Williams and instead gave testimonies concerning vehicles parked at the Mountain View, Travallyn, and Rivonia properties.
Mr Berrange and Mr Fischer cross-examine a few of the above mentioned witnesses before Mr Berrange stated the cross-examination of Abel Mthembu. Abel Mthembu is only partially cross-examined on this day as Dr Yutar successfully applied to interrupt proceedings in order to deal with one additional witness who was meant to have testified that morning. As the defence had no objection the further cross-examination of Abel Mthembu was held over until the following day.
Witnesses Called
26th State Witness: Mrs Nola Batchelder – Housewife, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
Nola Batcheldar made a report to the Lindhurst police, on the 10th of September, 1963, that a vehicle with the number plate T.J. 116-355 had been parked in the same spot for two weeks. As a result of her report the car was removed the following day by the police. The car had been parked about four miles away from the Mountain View suburb.
Following an extremely brief questioning by Mr Krog, which elucidated the above information from Nola Batcheldar, Mr Fischer raised and commented that he could not see the purpose of this evidence. Mr Krog explained that the evidence was that this vehicle had links to the Rivonia and Mountain View properties and was abandoned at the location near Nola Batcheldar’s house.
Following this Mr Fischer states that there was no cross-examination at this stage. As Nola Batcheldar had to go care for her young children she was immediately released from the court and told that she may be asked to return at a later date.
No cross-examination was ultimately required.
27th State Witness: Herbert Hodes – Manager, Hubby’s Car Spares.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
As managing director of the firm Hubby’s Car Spares Herbert Hodes had dealings with Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, who wanted to buy caste iron. Herbert Hodes told Denis Goldberg that they did not sell such material to individuals, only to factories. A few months later, in June, 1963, Herbert Hodes was introduced to Denis Goldberg by Mr Katz who called him Mr Williams. After this Herbert Hodes learnt that Mr Williams was looking to by an engine for a Kombi and offered to sell him one.
Herbert Hodes charged Mr Williams for the engine and delivered it to him. In addition to a certain amount of cash he also received the old Kombi engine from Denis Goldberg. In concluding his examination-in-chief Herbert Hodes recalled that when Denis Goldberg had enquired about purchasing caste iron he had giving him a quote of about R18 to R20 per ton.
Cross-examination reserved.
28th State Witness: Theodorus Palus – Clerk, Johannesburg Licencing Department.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
As an employee of the Johannesburg City Council in the Licencing Department Theodorus Palus was used by the state to link certain vehicles to the persons, places, and companies implicated in the charges of this case. The first vehicle, an Austin van with the number plate T.J. 116-355, was said to have been registered in the name of Navian (Pty) Ltd, with the address Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and signed by V. Ezra as director of Navian (Pty) Ltd.
The second vehicle identified was registered under the number T.J. 145-279 and was a 1957 model Chevrolet owned by Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. The next vehicle, registered T.J. 142-838, was a 1960 model Volkswagen Kombi in the name of Don Williams (No. 33 of Exhibit B). Followed by a Vauxhall Velox, registered T.J. 173-728, in the name of Alexander Hepple, which was changed to T.W. 8619 on 6th of January, 1963 (No.32 in Exhibit B). Next was a Taunas car registered in the name of Michael Alan Harmel with the number T.J. 171-236. The final vehicle identified was another Volkswagen Komi, registered under the number T.J. 56959, under the name of Mrs. Ray Taibe Harmel, who was Michael Harmel’s wife.
Mr Fischer informs the court that there will probably be no cross-examination requested but the defence did not admit that the evidence given by this witness was admissible.
29th State Witness: Desmond Todd – Salesman, F.W. MacKenzie Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Desmond Todd, like the witness before him, recognised Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as Mr Williams. According to Desmond Todd Denis Goldberg had come into his office and enquired about purchasing “wooden shooks” for the purpose of making boxes. Desmond Todd and his colleagues drew up quotations and creating sample boxes for Mr Williams without any knowledge of the purpose these boxes were to be used for. A document submitted as Exhibit T. 3, a record of this correspondence between Mr William and F.W. MacKenzie Ltd, was said to have been found on the Travallyn.
Dr Yutar concludes by informing Desmond Todd that he may require him to come back at a later stage to see if the landmine found at Liliesleaf Farm made use of the same type of box he was involved in creating a sample of for Mr Williams. From the amount of timber Mr Williams was quoted for he would have been able to create 48 000 of these boxes.
Cross-examination reserved.
30th State Witness: Frederick Milburn – Manager, Phoenix Foundry.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frederick Milburn worked at a firm which manufactured and supplied general casting to the mining industry. Like the two witnesses who proceeded him, Frederick Milburn gave evidence of a Mr Williams requesting quotations and samples of objects which could be used for bombs, landmines, and other explosives used for sabotage. Frederick Milburn was required to produce a sketch (Exhibit 66) and a sample (Exhibit 12) of the castings Mr Williams said he would require a few hundred thousand of.
Dr Yutar informs Frederick Milburn that the state would be submitting to the court a book found in the dining room at Rivonia which had the name of his firm in it. In addition to this the book made reference to Bentonite, a chemical used to produce moulds, and Ash Brothers firm who were the main suppliers of this substance. Lastly, Dr Yutar asks Frederick Milburn to comment on two sketches submitted to the court, one of which he thought was a receiver of sand for mould making (Exhibit T. 5), and the other of which he could not identify (T. 6).
While this witness could not identify any of the accused in the dock, he did identify Denis Goldberg’s photograph in Exhibit D as being of Mr Williams.
Cross-examination reserved.
31st State Witness: Leon Ruff – Technical Manager, Aerflow (Pty) Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Similarly to the previous witness, Leon Ruff, was not confidently able to identify any of the accused in the dock but was confident the photograph 3 of Exhibit D was Mr Williams. Leon Ruff had been approached by Mr Williams in April, 1963, and asked to give a verbal quotation for a fan or a blower. Leon Ruff gave the quotation to Mr Williams and had little else by way of evidence to offer to the state.
Cross-examination reserved.
32nd State Witness: Franz Marabec – Manager, Bosworths Steel Structures (Pty) Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
As with most other witnesses on this day, Franz Marabec gave evidence about interactions he had had with Mr Williams. According to Franz Marabec he only spoke to Mr Williams for about five minutes in which time he told Mr Williams that his firm was too busy to make the small cupola (furnace for melting steel) he required. Franz Marabec then put Mr Williams in touch with Mrs Levanos who gave him a copy of the drawing of a cupola (Exhibit T. 7) which was also found at Travallyn.
No Cross-examination.
33rd State Witness: Mrs Anita Levanos – Draughtswoman, Bosworths Steel Structures (Pty) Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Anita Levanos confirmed that she, in her capacity as a draughtswoman at Bosworths firm, was instructed to provide Mr Williams with a drawing of a small cupola. Anita Levanos claimed to have some all of the drawings of cupolas the firm had to Mr Williams and made him a copy of their smallest-sized model. The drawing Anita Levanos had copied for Mr Williams was still too large for his requirements but he took it regardless and told her he would be taking it to another firm to be made up.
No Cross-examination.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
In cross-examining Abel Mthembu Mr Berrange paints a picture of widespread “restlessness” growing amongst Africans across the country at the time when Abel Mthembu returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963. Abel Mthembu confirms that this was the case adding “… Sikukuneland in 1963, the Transkei 1960, the schools got burnt down, buildings, and after that there were sporadic acts of violence in various parts all over the country”. Mr Berrange then puts it to Abel Mthembu that the MK had been created in order “to control and direct the violence that was then already taking place”.
This attempt to reframe the nature and purpose of MK was unsuccessful as Abel Mthembu insisted that, as far as he knew, the MK was established to carry out its own operations, those which the ANC could not carry out itself, not to carry on with violence that was already present in the Republic. However, Mr Berrange was able to reiterate the point that Abel Mthembu was told “on more than one occasion, that such violence as Umkonto directed, should not result in injury to people”.
Mr Berrange spent a significant amount of time establishing that Abel Mthembu considered himself to be a devoted member of the ANC and MK. This was evidenced by the fact that during the whole of his first 90 day detention in Marshal Square Prison Abel Mthembu refused to make any statement about the ANC or MK to the police. Abel Mthembu was released in August and re-arrested in October when Bruno Mtolo pointed him out to police at his home in Dube from where he was taken eventually to Langlaagte Prison, where he remained as a prisoner at the time of the trial.
Abel Mthembu claimed that “As a result of the fact that Bruno pointed me out, I realised that there was nothing more for me now to hide, because they evidently knew”. Once under arrest for the second time, Abel Mthembu claimed to have denied all knowledge of the ANC and MK for the first few days but ultimately decided to make a statement to the police.
Mr Berrange then draws attention to the instructions Abel Mthembu claimed to have been given by Govan Mbeki at Rivonia to go and meet with recruits in Germiston on the 4th, 11th, and 18th, of May, 1963. Abel Mthembu told the court that when he received these instructions from Mbeki they were given in “European language” because Abel Mthembu spoke Sesotho and Govan Mbeki spoke isiXhosa, which are not mutually understandable. Mr Berrange pushed extremely hard to get Abel Mthembu to admit that he could have potentially have spoken to Govan Mbeki in isiZulu or another African language in the Thatched Cottage. It was important for Mr Berrange to get this, albeit hesitant, answer from Abel Mthembu as it was essential for justifying Ahmed Kathrada’s claim that he, not understanding African languages, was never involved in or paying attention to any conversations at Rivonia conducted in such languages.
Further cross-examination reserved.
27th State Witness: Herbert Hodes – Manager, Hubby’s Car Spares. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
Mr Fischer comments that the witness was unable to provide any exact dates in his evidence and asked if he had any notes stored elsewhere detailing the dates of the events he spoke of. Herbert Hodes informed the court that there were notes of transactions at his office but Mr Fischer stated that these would not necessarily help identify the date one which he first met Mr Williams who he claimed to be Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg. Mr Fischer said this was important because they had evidence that Denis Goldberg was not in Johannesburg during April, 1963, and thus could not have been this person if the meeting took place during that month. Herbert Hodes told Mr Fischer that he simply could not confidently recall the date and was asked no further questions.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar merely confirms that the witness has no dates for this first meeting.
28th State Witness: Theodorus Palus – Clerk, Johannesburg Licencing Department. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief continued by Mr Krog.
Theodorus Palus was recalled to hand in photo static copies of the sets of documents associated with each of the vehicles identified and discussed during his first appearance on this day. They are submitted to the court, in the order they were originally discussed, as Exhibits HH, JJ, KK, LL, MM, and NN.
No cross-examination.
30th State Witness: Frederick Milburn – Manager, Phoenix Foundry. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief continued by Dr Yutar.
Frederick Milburn was recalled in order to provide expert insight into a number of sketches and diagrams found at Travallyn. These sketches and diagrams (Exhibits T. 8, T. 9, and T. 10, in particular) concerned cupolas, castings, and other materials which Frederick Milburn claimed could have been used for the manufacturing of landmines, bombs, and other items to be used for sabotage.
No cross-examination.
31st State Witness: Leon Ruff – Technical Manager, Aerflow (Pty) Ltd. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
Mr Fischer asks Leon Ruff the same question he put to Herbert Hodes – if he had any notes of the dates which he referred to in his evidence-in-chief. As with Herbert Hodes, Leon Ruff did not have any note of the exact date and said that his first meeting with Mr Williams could have been at the end of May or the beginning of June, 1963.
No re-examination.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg. (Recalled).
Further cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Mr Berrange returns attention to the occasion on which Abel Mthembu introduced Bruno Mtolo to Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilson Mkwyi, and asked Abel Mthembu if Walter Sisulu appeared to be in a hurry to leave. Abel Mthembu said that no such indication was given to him whilst he was in the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Berrange then questioned Abel Mthembu about the instructions he had been given by Govan Mbeki regarding meeting recruits at Germiston. At this point Abel Mthembu mentioned for the first time that the intention was for him to meet these recruits and take them to Andrew Mlangeni. When asked several times by Mr Berrange if he was ever concerned when the groups of recruits he was instructed to meet never arrived, Abel Mthembu simply responded that he was not very concerned at all because this had happened on the very first occasion. When asked why he had waited at least two weeks before reporting to Govan Mbeki at the High Command that the last batch of recruits had not arrived as instructed, Abel Mthembu gave a half-hearted response indicating that he just wasn’t worried about it.
Mr Berrange then put it to Abel Mthembu, “that the reason that [he] never made any report of this sort, to Mbeki, is due to the fact that you never received any such instructions from Mbeki, whoever else you might have received them from”. Abel Mthembu responded that he had received the instructions from Govan Mbeki and this was evidenced by the fact that Bruno Mtolo asked him why these recruits had not been fetched. Mr Berrange then responded, “You see that leads me to the other point – it’s that this discussion which you say that you had with Mbeki on the occasion when you took Mtolo, Bruno, to Mbeki has not been testified to at all by Bruno: He never said one word of it!”.
Another claim made by Abel Mthembu for the very first time during his examination-in-chief was that Jack Hodgson had told him that the High Command was at Rivonia. Mr Krog attempted to dispute this point but Mr Berrange argued that the inconsistency in Abel Mthembu’s answers in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination were indications that he was either confused or tailoring his evidence to fit with that of other state witnesses.
The witness is free to go and free from prosecution as far as the court was concerned.
No re-examination.
Court is adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/5A/9c) (Vol.50/5A/10c) (Vol.50/5A/11c) (Vol.50/5A/12c) (Vol.50/5A/13c) (Vol.50/5B/14c) (Vol.50/5B/15c) (Vol.50/5B/16c) (Vol.50/5B/17c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 22nd January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Denis Goldberg, Mr Williams, Sabotage, Explosives, MK, Vehicles.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Anita Levanos and Patrick Abel Mthembu
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Patrick Abel Mthembu
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Patrick Abel Mthembu
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
Court proceedings began with a request from Dr Yutar that before the court is cleared for the cross-examination of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, he would like to first call eight witnesses, mostly business men and women, to give short testimonies. Judge De wet agreed with this suggestion and there was no objection from the defence. All of these witnesses gave evidence relating directly to Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and the interactions them had with him whilst operating under the alias Mr D. Williams.
The testimony of these witnesses painted a picture of Denis Goldberg, as Mr Williams, going to a number of companies and getting quotations and samples of materials which were used for the manufacturing of bombs, landmines, hand grenades, and other articles used for sabotage and guerrilla warfare. It was during the testimonies of these witnesses that the issue of identification caused by the lack of facial hair on Denis Goldberg in the dock arose once again.
Only two of this group of eight witnesses called did not give evidence of business interactions with Mr Williams and instead gave testimonies concerning vehicles parked at the Mountain View, Travallyn, and Rivonia properties.
Mr Berrange and Mr Fischer cross-examine a few of the above mentioned witnesses before Mr Berrange stated the cross-examination of Abel Mthembu. Abel Mthembu is only partially cross-examined on this day as Dr Yutar successfully applied to interrupt proceedings in order to deal with one additional witness who was meant to have testified that morning. As the defence had no objection the further cross-examination of Abel Mthembu was held over until the following day.
Witnesses Called
26th State Witness: Mrs Nola Batchelder – Housewife, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
Nola Batcheldar made a report to the Lindhurst police, on the 10th of September, 1963, that a vehicle with the number plate T.J. 116-355 had been parked in the same spot for two weeks. As a result of her report the car was removed the following day by the police. The car had been parked about four miles away from the Mountain View suburb.
Following an extremely brief questioning by Mr Krog, which elucidated the above information from Nola Batcheldar, Mr Fischer raised and commented that he could not see the purpose of this evidence. Mr Krog explained that the evidence was that this vehicle had links to the Rivonia and Mountain View properties and was abandoned at the location near Nola Batcheldar’s house.
Following this Mr Fischer states that there was no cross-examination at this stage. As Nola Batcheldar had to go care for her young children she was immediately released from the court and told that she may be asked to return at a later date.
No cross-examination was ultimately required.
27th State Witness: Herbert Hodes – Manager, Hubby’s Car Spares.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
As managing director of the firm Hubby’s Car Spares Herbert Hodes had dealings with Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, who wanted to buy caste iron. Herbert Hodes told Denis Goldberg that they did not sell such material to individuals, only to factories. A few months later, in June, 1963, Herbert Hodes was introduced to Denis Goldberg by Mr Katz who called him Mr Williams. After this Herbert Hodes learnt that Mr Williams was looking to by an engine for a Kombi and offered to sell him one.
Herbert Hodes charged Mr Williams for the engine and delivered it to him. In addition to a certain amount of cash he also received the old Kombi engine from Denis Goldberg. In concluding his examination-in-chief Herbert Hodes recalled that when Denis Goldberg had enquired about purchasing caste iron he had giving him a quote of about R18 to R20 per ton.
Cross-examination reserved.
28th State Witness: Theodorus Palus – Clerk, Johannesburg Licencing Department.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
As an employee of the Johannesburg City Council in the Licencing Department Theodorus Palus was used by the state to link certain vehicles to the persons, places, and companies implicated in the charges of this case. The first vehicle, an Austin van with the number plate T.J. 116-355, was said to have been registered in the name of Navian (Pty) Ltd, with the address Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and signed by V. Ezra as director of Navian (Pty) Ltd.
The second vehicle identified was registered under the number T.J. 145-279 and was a 1957 model Chevrolet owned by Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. The next vehicle, registered T.J. 142-838, was a 1960 model Volkswagen Kombi in the name of Don Williams (No. 33 of Exhibit B). Followed by a Vauxhall Velox, registered T.J. 173-728, in the name of Alexander Hepple, which was changed to T.W. 8619 on 6th of January, 1963 (No.32 in Exhibit B). Next was a Taunas car registered in the name of Michael Alan Harmel with the number T.J. 171-236. The final vehicle identified was another Volkswagen Komi, registered under the number T.J. 56959, under the name of Mrs. Ray Taibe Harmel, who was Michael Harmel’s wife.
Mr Fischer informs the court that there will probably be no cross-examination requested but the defence did not admit that the evidence given by this witness was admissible.
29th State Witness: Desmond Todd – Salesman, F.W. MacKenzie Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Desmond Todd, like the witness before him, recognised Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as Mr Williams. According to Desmond Todd Denis Goldberg had come into his office and enquired about purchasing “wooden shooks” for the purpose of making boxes. Desmond Todd and his colleagues drew up quotations and creating sample boxes for Mr Williams without any knowledge of the purpose these boxes were to be used for. A document submitted as Exhibit T. 3, a record of this correspondence between Mr William and F.W. MacKenzie Ltd, was said to have been found on the Travallyn.
Dr Yutar concludes by informing Desmond Todd that he may require him to come back at a later stage to see if the landmine found at Liliesleaf Farm made use of the same type of box he was involved in creating a sample of for Mr Williams. From the amount of timber Mr Williams was quoted for he would have been able to create 48 000 of these boxes.
Cross-examination reserved.
30th State Witness: Frederick Milburn – Manager, Phoenix Foundry.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frederick Milburn worked at a firm which manufactured and supplied general casting to the mining industry. Like the two witnesses who proceeded him, Frederick Milburn gave evidence of a Mr Williams requesting quotations and samples of objects which could be used for bombs, landmines, and other explosives used for sabotage. Frederick Milburn was required to produce a sketch (Exhibit 66) and a sample (Exhibit 12) of the castings Mr Williams said he would require a few hundred thousand of.
Dr Yutar informs Frederick Milburn that the state would be submitting to the court a book found in the dining room at Rivonia which had the name of his firm in it. In addition to this the book made reference to Bentonite, a chemical used to produce moulds, and Ash Brothers firm who were the main suppliers of this substance. Lastly, Dr Yutar asks Frederick Milburn to comment on two sketches submitted to the court, one of which he thought was a receiver of sand for mould making (Exhibit T. 5), and the other of which he could not identify (T. 6).
While this witness could not identify any of the accused in the dock, he did identify Denis Goldberg’s photograph in Exhibit D as being of Mr Williams.
Cross-examination reserved.
31st State Witness: Leon Ruff – Technical Manager, Aerflow (Pty) Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Similarly to the previous witness, Leon Ruff, was not confidently able to identify any of the accused in the dock but was confident the photograph 3 of Exhibit D was Mr Williams. Leon Ruff had been approached by Mr Williams in April, 1963, and asked to give a verbal quotation for a fan or a blower. Leon Ruff gave the quotation to Mr Williams and had little else by way of evidence to offer to the state.
Cross-examination reserved.
32nd State Witness: Franz Marabec – Manager, Bosworths Steel Structures (Pty) Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
As with most other witnesses on this day, Franz Marabec gave evidence about interactions he had had with Mr Williams. According to Franz Marabec he only spoke to Mr Williams for about five minutes in which time he told Mr Williams that his firm was too busy to make the small cupola (furnace for melting steel) he required. Franz Marabec then put Mr Williams in touch with Mrs Levanos who gave him a copy of the drawing of a cupola (Exhibit T. 7) which was also found at Travallyn.
No Cross-examination.
33rd State Witness: Mrs Anita Levanos – Draughtswoman, Bosworths Steel Structures (Pty) Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Anita Levanos confirmed that she, in her capacity as a draughtswoman at Bosworths firm, was instructed to provide Mr Williams with a drawing of a small cupola. Anita Levanos claimed to have some all of the drawings of cupolas the firm had to Mr Williams and made him a copy of their smallest-sized model. The drawing Anita Levanos had copied for Mr Williams was still too large for his requirements but he took it regardless and told her he would be taking it to another firm to be made up.
No Cross-examination.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
In cross-examining Abel Mthembu Mr Berrange paints a picture of widespread “restlessness” growing amongst Africans across the country at the time when Abel Mthembu returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963. Abel Mthembu confirms that this was the case adding “… Sikukuneland in 1963, the Transkei 1960, the schools got burnt down, buildings, and after that there were sporadic acts of violence in various parts all over the country”. Mr Berrange then puts it to Abel Mthembu that the MK had been created in order “to control and direct the violence that was then already taking place”.
This attempt to reframe the nature and purpose of MK was unsuccessful as Abel Mthembu insisted that, as far as he knew, the MK was established to carry out its own operations, those which the ANC could not carry out itself, not to carry on with violence that was already present in the Republic. However, Mr Berrange was able to reiterate the point that Abel Mthembu was told “on more than one occasion, that such violence as Umkonto directed, should not result in injury to people”.
Mr Berrange spent a significant amount of time establishing that Abel Mthembu considered himself to be a devoted member of the ANC and MK. This was evidenced by the fact that during the whole of his first 90 day detention in Marshal Square Prison Abel Mthembu refused to make any statement about the ANC or MK to the police. Abel Mthembu was released in August and re-arrested in October when Bruno Mtolo pointed him out to police at his home in Dube from where he was taken eventually to Langlaagte Prison, where he remained as a prisoner at the time of the trial.
Abel Mthembu claimed that “As a result of the fact that Bruno pointed me out, I realised that there was nothing more for me now to hide, because they evidently knew”. Once under arrest for the second time, Abel Mthembu claimed to have denied all knowledge of the ANC and MK for the first few days but ultimately decided to make a statement to the police.
Mr Berrange then draws attention to the instructions Abel Mthembu claimed to have been given by Govan Mbeki at Rivonia to go and meet with recruits in Germiston on the 4th, 11th, and 18th, of May, 1963. Abel Mthembu told the court that when he received these instructions from Mbeki they were given in “European language” because Abel Mthembu spoke Sesotho and Govan Mbeki spoke isiXhosa, which are not mutually understandable. Mr Berrange pushed extremely hard to get Abel Mthembu to admit that he could have potentially have spoken to Govan Mbeki in isiZulu or another African language in the Thatched Cottage. It was important for Mr Berrange to get this, albeit hesitant, answer from Abel Mthembu as it was essential for justifying Ahmed Kathrada’s claim that he, not understanding African languages, was never involved in or paying attention to any conversations at Rivonia conducted in such languages.
Further cross-examination reserved.
27th State Witness: Herbert Hodes – Manager, Hubby’s Car Spares. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
Mr Fischer comments that the witness was unable to provide any exact dates in his evidence and asked if he had any notes stored elsewhere detailing the dates of the events he spoke of. Herbert Hodes informed the court that there were notes of transactions at his office but Mr Fischer stated that these would not necessarily help identify the date one which he first met Mr Williams who he claimed to be Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg. Mr Fischer said this was important because they had evidence that Denis Goldberg was not in Johannesburg during April, 1963, and thus could not have been this person if the meeting took place during that month. Herbert Hodes told Mr Fischer that he simply could not confidently recall the date and was asked no further questions.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar merely confirms that the witness has no dates for this first meeting.
28th State Witness: Theodorus Palus – Clerk, Johannesburg Licencing Department. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief continued by Mr Krog.
Theodorus Palus was recalled to hand in photo static copies of the sets of documents associated with each of the vehicles identified and discussed during his first appearance on this day. They are submitted to the court, in the order they were originally discussed, as Exhibits HH, JJ, KK, LL, MM, and NN.
No cross-examination.
30th State Witness: Frederick Milburn – Manager, Phoenix Foundry. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief continued by Dr Yutar.
Frederick Milburn was recalled in order to provide expert insight into a number of sketches and diagrams found at Travallyn. These sketches and diagrams (Exhibits T. 8, T. 9, and T. 10, in particular) concerned cupolas, castings, and other materials which Frederick Milburn claimed could have been used for the manufacturing of landmines, bombs, and other items to be used for sabotage.
No cross-examination.
31st State Witness: Leon Ruff – Technical Manager, Aerflow (Pty) Ltd. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
Mr Fischer asks Leon Ruff the same question he put to Herbert Hodes – if he had any notes of the dates which he referred to in his evidence-in-chief. As with Herbert Hodes, Leon Ruff did not have any note of the exact date and said that his first meeting with Mr Williams could have been at the end of May or the beginning of June, 1963.
No re-examination.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg. (Recalled).
Further cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Mr Berrange returns attention to the occasion on which Abel Mthembu introduced Bruno Mtolo to Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilson Mkwyi, and asked Abel Mthembu if Walter Sisulu appeared to be in a hurry to leave. Abel Mthembu said that no such indication was given to him whilst he was in the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Berrange then questioned Abel Mthembu about the instructions he had been given by Govan Mbeki regarding meeting recruits at Germiston. At this point Abel Mthembu mentioned for the first time that the intention was for him to meet these recruits and take them to Andrew Mlangeni. When asked several times by Mr Berrange if he was ever concerned when the groups of recruits he was instructed to meet never arrived, Abel Mthembu simply responded that he was not very concerned at all because this had happened on the very first occasion. When asked why he had waited at least two weeks before reporting to Govan Mbeki at the High Command that the last batch of recruits had not arrived as instructed, Abel Mthembu gave a half-hearted response indicating that he just wasn’t worried about it.
Mr Berrange then put it to Abel Mthembu, “that the reason that [he] never made any report of this sort, to Mbeki, is due to the fact that you never received any such instructions from Mbeki, whoever else you might have received them from”. Abel Mthembu responded that he had received the instructions from Govan Mbeki and this was evidenced by the fact that Bruno Mtolo asked him why these recruits had not been fetched. Mr Berrange then responded, “You see that leads me to the other point – it’s that this discussion which you say that you had with Mbeki on the occasion when you took Mtolo, Bruno, to Mbeki has not been testified to at all by Bruno: He never said one word of it!”.
Another claim made by Abel Mthembu for the very first time during his examination-in-chief was that Jack Hodgson had told him that the High Command was at Rivonia. Mr Krog attempted to dispute this point but Mr Berrange argued that the inconsistency in Abel Mthembu’s answers in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination were indications that he was either confused or tailoring his evidence to fit with that of other state witnesses.
The witness is free to go and free from prosecution as far as the court was concerned.
No re-examination.
Court is adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/5A/9c) (Vol.50/5A/10c) (Vol.50/5A/11c) (Vol.50/5A/12c) (Vol.50/5A/13c) (Vol.50/5B/14c) (Vol.50/5B/15c) (Vol.50/5B/16c) (Vol.50/5B/17c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 22nd January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Denis Goldberg, Mr Williams, Sabotage, Explosives, MK, Vehicles.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Patrick Abel Mthembu
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Moela Batchelder, Herbert Hodes and Theodoras Palus / Palos
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Moela Batchelder, Herbert Hodes and Theodoras Palus / Palos
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
Court proceedings began with a request from Dr Yutar that before the court is cleared for the cross-examination of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, he would like to first call eight witnesses, mostly business men and women, to give short testimonies. Judge De wet agreed with this suggestion and there was no objection from the defence. All of these witnesses gave evidence relating directly to Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and the interactions them had with him whilst operating under the alias Mr D. Williams.
The testimony of these witnesses painted a picture of Denis Goldberg, as Mr Williams, going to a number of companies and getting quotations and samples of materials which were used for the manufacturing of bombs, landmines, hand grenades, and other articles used for sabotage and guerrilla warfare. It was during the testimonies of these witnesses that the issue of identification caused by the lack of facial hair on Denis Goldberg in the dock arose once again.
Only two of this group of eight witnesses called did not give evidence of business interactions with Mr Williams and instead gave testimonies concerning vehicles parked at the Mountain View, Travallyn, and Rivonia properties.
Mr Berrange and Mr Fischer cross-examine a few of the above mentioned witnesses before Mr Berrange stated the cross-examination of Abel Mthembu. Abel Mthembu is only partially cross-examined on this day as Dr Yutar successfully applied to interrupt proceedings in order to deal with one additional witness who was meant to have testified that morning. As the defence had no objection the further cross-examination of Abel Mthembu was held over until the following day.
Witnesses Called
26th State Witness: Mrs Nola Batchelder – Housewife, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
Nola Batcheldar made a report to the Lindhurst police, on the 10th of September, 1963, that a vehicle with the number plate T.J. 116-355 had been parked in the same spot for two weeks. As a result of her report the car was removed the following day by the police. The car had been parked about four miles away from the Mountain View suburb.
Following an extremely brief questioning by Mr Krog, which elucidated the above information from Nola Batcheldar, Mr Fischer raised and commented that he could not see the purpose of this evidence. Mr Krog explained that the evidence was that this vehicle had links to the Rivonia and Mountain View properties and was abandoned at the location near Nola Batcheldar’s house.
Following this Mr Fischer states that there was no cross-examination at this stage. As Nola Batcheldar had to go care for her young children she was immediately released from the court and told that she may be asked to return at a later date.
No cross-examination was ultimately required.
27th State Witness: Herbert Hodes – Manager, Hubby’s Car Spares.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
As managing director of the firm Hubby’s Car Spares Herbert Hodes had dealings with Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, who wanted to buy caste iron. Herbert Hodes told Denis Goldberg that they did not sell such material to individuals, only to factories. A few months later, in June, 1963, Herbert Hodes was introduced to Denis Goldberg by Mr Katz who called him Mr Williams. After this Herbert Hodes learnt that Mr Williams was looking to by an engine for a Kombi and offered to sell him one.
Herbert Hodes charged Mr Williams for the engine and delivered it to him. In addition to a certain amount of cash he also received the old Kombi engine from Denis Goldberg. In concluding his examination-in-chief Herbert Hodes recalled that when Denis Goldberg had enquired about purchasing caste iron he had giving him a quote of about R18 to R20 per ton.
Cross-examination reserved.
28th State Witness: Theodorus Palus – Clerk, Johannesburg Licencing Department.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
As an employee of the Johannesburg City Council in the Licencing Department Theodorus Palus was used by the state to link certain vehicles to the persons, places, and companies implicated in the charges of this case. The first vehicle, an Austin van with the number plate T.J. 116-355, was said to have been registered in the name of Navian (Pty) Ltd, with the address Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and signed by V. Ezra as director of Navian (Pty) Ltd.
The second vehicle identified was registered under the number T.J. 145-279 and was a 1957 model Chevrolet owned by Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. The next vehicle, registered T.J. 142-838, was a 1960 model Volkswagen Kombi in the name of Don Williams (No. 33 of Exhibit B). Followed by a Vauxhall Velox, registered T.J. 173-728, in the name of Alexander Hepple, which was changed to T.W. 8619 on 6th of January, 1963 (No.32 in Exhibit B). Next was a Taunas car registered in the name of Michael Alan Harmel with the number T.J. 171-236. The final vehicle identified was another Volkswagen Komi, registered under the number T.J. 56959, under the name of Mrs. Ray Taibe Harmel, who was Michael Harmel’s wife.
Mr Fischer informs the court that there will probably be no cross-examination requested but the defence did not admit that the evidence given by this witness was admissible.
29th State Witness: Desmond Todd – Salesman, F.W. MacKenzie Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Desmond Todd, like the witness before him, recognised Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as Mr Williams. According to Desmond Todd Denis Goldberg had come into his office and enquired about purchasing “wooden shooks” for the purpose of making boxes. Desmond Todd and his colleagues drew up quotations and creating sample boxes for Mr Williams without any knowledge of the purpose these boxes were to be used for. A document submitted as Exhibit T. 3, a record of this correspondence between Mr William and F.W. MacKenzie Ltd, was said to have been found on the Travallyn.
Dr Yutar concludes by informing Desmond Todd that he may require him to come back at a later stage to see if the landmine found at Liliesleaf Farm made use of the same type of box he was involved in creating a sample of for Mr Williams. From the amount of timber Mr Williams was quoted for he would have been able to create 48 000 of these boxes.
Cross-examination reserved.
30th State Witness: Frederick Milburn – Manager, Phoenix Foundry.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frederick Milburn worked at a firm which manufactured and supplied general casting to the mining industry. Like the two witnesses who proceeded him, Frederick Milburn gave evidence of a Mr Williams requesting quotations and samples of objects which could be used for bombs, landmines, and other explosives used for sabotage. Frederick Milburn was required to produce a sketch (Exhibit 66) and a sample (Exhibit 12) of the castings Mr Williams said he would require a few hundred thousand of.
Dr Yutar informs Frederick Milburn that the state would be submitting to the court a book found in the dining room at Rivonia which had the name of his firm in it. In addition to this the book made reference to Bentonite, a chemical used to produce moulds, and Ash Brothers firm who were the main suppliers of this substance. Lastly, Dr Yutar asks Frederick Milburn to comment on two sketches submitted to the court, one of which he thought was a receiver of sand for mould making (Exhibit T. 5), and the other of which he could not identify (T. 6).
While this witness could not identify any of the accused in the dock, he did identify Denis Goldberg’s photograph in Exhibit D as being of Mr Williams.
Cross-examination reserved.
31st State Witness: Leon Ruff – Technical Manager, Aerflow (Pty) Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Similarly to the previous witness, Leon Ruff, was not confidently able to identify any of the accused in the dock but was confident the photograph 3 of Exhibit D was Mr Williams. Leon Ruff had been approached by Mr Williams in April, 1963, and asked to give a verbal quotation for a fan or a blower. Leon Ruff gave the quotation to Mr Williams and had little else by way of evidence to offer to the state.
Cross-examination reserved.
32nd State Witness: Franz Marabec – Manager, Bosworths Steel Structures (Pty) Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
As with most other witnesses on this day, Franz Marabec gave evidence about interactions he had had with Mr Williams. According to Franz Marabec he only spoke to Mr Williams for about five minutes in which time he told Mr Williams that his firm was too busy to make the small cupola (furnace for melting steel) he required. Franz Marabec then put Mr Williams in touch with Mrs Levanos who gave him a copy of the drawing of a cupola (Exhibit T. 7) which was also found at Travallyn.
No Cross-examination.
33rd State Witness: Mrs Anita Levanos – Draughtswoman, Bosworths Steel Structures (Pty) Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Anita Levanos confirmed that she, in her capacity as a draughtswoman at Bosworths firm, was instructed to provide Mr Williams with a drawing of a small cupola. Anita Levanos claimed to have some all of the drawings of cupolas the firm had to Mr Williams and made him a copy of their smallest-sized model. The drawing Anita Levanos had copied for Mr Williams was still too large for his requirements but he took it regardless and told her he would be taking it to another firm to be made up.
No Cross-examination.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
In cross-examining Abel Mthembu Mr Berrange paints a picture of widespread “restlessness” growing amongst Africans across the country at the time when Abel Mthembu returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963. Abel Mthembu confirms that this was the case adding “… Sikukuneland in 1963, the Transkei 1960, the schools got burnt down, buildings, and after that there were sporadic acts of violence in various parts all over the country”. Mr Berrange then puts it to Abel Mthembu that the MK had been created in order “to control and direct the violence that was then already taking place”.
This attempt to reframe the nature and purpose of MK was unsuccessful as Abel Mthembu insisted that, as far as he knew, the MK was established to carry out its own operations, those which the ANC could not carry out itself, not to carry on with violence that was already present in the Republic. However, Mr Berrange was able to reiterate the point that Abel Mthembu was told “on more than one occasion, that such violence as Umkonto directed, should not result in injury to people”.
Mr Berrange spent a significant amount of time establishing that Abel Mthembu considered himself to be a devoted member of the ANC and MK. This was evidenced by the fact that during the whole of his first 90 day detention in Marshal Square Prison Abel Mthembu refused to make any statement about the ANC or MK to the police. Abel Mthembu was released in August and re-arrested in October when Bruno Mtolo pointed him out to police at his home in Dube from where he was taken eventually to Langlaagte Prison, where he remained as a prisoner at the time of the trial.
Abel Mthembu claimed that “As a result of the fact that Bruno pointed me out, I realised that there was nothing more for me now to hide, because they evidently knew”. Once under arrest for the second time, Abel Mthembu claimed to have denied all knowledge of the ANC and MK for the first few days but ultimately decided to make a statement to the police.
Mr Berrange then draws attention to the instructions Abel Mthembu claimed to have been given by Govan Mbeki at Rivonia to go and meet with recruits in Germiston on the 4th, 11th, and 18th, of May, 1963. Abel Mthembu told the court that when he received these instructions from Mbeki they were given in “European language” because Abel Mthembu spoke Sesotho and Govan Mbeki spoke isiXhosa, which are not mutually understandable. Mr Berrange pushed extremely hard to get Abel Mthembu to admit that he could have potentially have spoken to Govan Mbeki in isiZulu or another African language in the Thatched Cottage. It was important for Mr Berrange to get this, albeit hesitant, answer from Abel Mthembu as it was essential for justifying Ahmed Kathrada’s claim that he, not understanding African languages, was never involved in or paying attention to any conversations at Rivonia conducted in such languages.
Further cross-examination reserved.
27th State Witness: Herbert Hodes – Manager, Hubby’s Car Spares. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
Mr Fischer comments that the witness was unable to provide any exact dates in his evidence and asked if he had any notes stored elsewhere detailing the dates of the events he spoke of. Herbert Hodes informed the court that there were notes of transactions at his office but Mr Fischer stated that these would not necessarily help identify the date one which he first met Mr Williams who he claimed to be Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg. Mr Fischer said this was important because they had evidence that Denis Goldberg was not in Johannesburg during April, 1963, and thus could not have been this person if the meeting took place during that month. Herbert Hodes told Mr Fischer that he simply could not confidently recall the date and was asked no further questions.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar merely confirms that the witness has no dates for this first meeting.
28th State Witness: Theodorus Palus – Clerk, Johannesburg Licencing Department. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief continued by Mr Krog.
Theodorus Palus was recalled to hand in photo static copies of the sets of documents associated with each of the vehicles identified and discussed during his first appearance on this day. They are submitted to the court, in the order they were originally discussed, as Exhibits HH, JJ, KK, LL, MM, and NN.
No cross-examination.
30th State Witness: Frederick Milburn – Manager, Phoenix Foundry. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief continued by Dr Yutar.
Frederick Milburn was recalled in order to provide expert insight into a number of sketches and diagrams found at Travallyn. These sketches and diagrams (Exhibits T. 8, T. 9, and T. 10, in particular) concerned cupolas, castings, and other materials which Frederick Milburn claimed could have been used for the manufacturing of landmines, bombs, and other items to be used for sabotage.
No cross-examination.
31st State Witness: Leon Ruff – Technical Manager, Aerflow (Pty) Ltd. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
Mr Fischer asks Leon Ruff the same question he put to Herbert Hodes – if he had any notes of the dates which he referred to in his evidence-in-chief. As with Herbert Hodes, Leon Ruff did not have any note of the exact date and said that his first meeting with Mr Williams could have been at the end of May or the beginning of June, 1963.
No re-examination.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg. (Recalled).
Further cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Mr Berrange returns attention to the occasion on which Abel Mthembu introduced Bruno Mtolo to Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilson Mkwyi, and asked Abel Mthembu if Walter Sisulu appeared to be in a hurry to leave. Abel Mthembu said that no such indication was given to him whilst he was in the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Berrange then questioned Abel Mthembu about the instructions he had been given by Govan Mbeki regarding meeting recruits at Germiston. At this point Abel Mthembu mentioned for the first time that the intention was for him to meet these recruits and take them to Andrew Mlangeni. When asked several times by Mr Berrange if he was ever concerned when the groups of recruits he was instructed to meet never arrived, Abel Mthembu simply responded that he was not very concerned at all because this had happened on the very first occasion. When asked why he had waited at least two weeks before reporting to Govan Mbeki at the High Command that the last batch of recruits had not arrived as instructed, Abel Mthembu gave a half-hearted response indicating that he just wasn’t worried about it.
Mr Berrange then put it to Abel Mthembu, “that the reason that [he] never made any report of this sort, to Mbeki, is due to the fact that you never received any such instructions from Mbeki, whoever else you might have received them from”. Abel Mthembu responded that he had received the instructions from Govan Mbeki and this was evidenced by the fact that Bruno Mtolo asked him why these recruits had not been fetched. Mr Berrange then responded, “You see that leads me to the other point – it’s that this discussion which you say that you had with Mbeki on the occasion when you took Mtolo, Bruno, to Mbeki has not been testified to at all by Bruno: He never said one word of it!”.
Another claim made by Abel Mthembu for the very first time during his examination-in-chief was that Jack Hodgson had told him that the High Command was at Rivonia. Mr Krog attempted to dispute this point but Mr Berrange argued that the inconsistency in Abel Mthembu’s answers in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination were indications that he was either confused or tailoring his evidence to fit with that of other state witnesses.
The witness is free to go and free from prosecution as far as the court was concerned.
No re-examination.
Court is adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/5A/9c) (Vol.50/5A/10c) (Vol.50/5A/11c) (Vol.50/5A/12c) (Vol.50/5A/13c) (Vol.50/5B/14c) (Vol.50/5B/15c) (Vol.50/5B/16c) (Vol.50/5B/17c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 22nd January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Denis Goldberg, Mr Williams, Sabotage, Explosives, MK, Vehicles.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Moela Batchelder, Herbert Hodes and Theodoras Palus / Palos
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Patrick Abel Mthemu, Herbert Hodes and Theodoras Palus
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for Access
Written permission by the National Archives and the Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA Database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if nothing has changed. There is nothing sacred or inherently superior about non-violent methods of struggle. So long as they are effective weapons to fight for freedom and democracy, they must be employed fully, but it would be wrong to persist with them mechanically and conditions demand modifications."
On page 11 (page 285):
“The people of South Africa, led by the S.A.C.P., will destroy the capitalist society and build in its place socialism…”
On pages 12 and 13 (pages 285 and 286):
"Hence the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms as reactionaries and liberals often advise, but by revolution. One, therefore, must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
Finally, if development and change in things take place by way of collisions between opposite forces, then it is clear that the struggle between workers and capitalists is natural and inevitable. Hence we must not try to preach peace and harmony between workers and capitalists. We must stimulate and encourage class struggles. We must call upon workers to conduct a ceaseless war against the capitalist class and for socialism."
Dr Yutar informed the court the reason for his reading of certain sections from this document was in order to provide a definition of Dialectical Materialism which, Judge De Wet could decide, either corresponded with that given by Bruno Mtolo or not.
Exhibit R. 22 was the third part of Nelson Mandela’s writings on communism entitled “Chapter Three – Political Economy” which took the form of a 16 page foolscap sized document. Dr Yutar does not analyse this document beyond commenting on the fact that it sets out the five social classes identified in classic Marxist teleological theory.
Thereafter, attention is placed on Exhibit R. 23, which was an index to Exhibits R. 20, R. 21, and R. 22, and also gives an index for Parts Four, Five and Six of Nelson Mandela’s writings. This document was the only one submitted on this day which was not identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela but it was found in the study of Arthur Goldreich.
The second to last document submitted on this day was Exhibit R. 24, a handwritten 65 page manuscript headed “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War”, from which Dr Yutar read very little to the court. And, finally, the last document submitted by the state which was found in the Study at Rivonia, was Exhibit R. 25 a 13 page document entitled “Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara”. Dr Yutar read several extracts from these handwritten notes which were a summary of certain points taken from the book “Guerrilla Warfare” by Che Guevara, a copy of which was found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm and submitted as Exhibit R. 6.
Following his reading of extracts from Exhibit R. 25, Dr Yutar informs the court that he had concluded his examination of the witness, however he would be recalling D/Sgt du Preez on several more occasions in the future in order to submit additional documents identified as being in the handwriting of some of the accused and named co-conspirators and only at on his final appearance would he explain the reasons for his identification of handwriting. To this Mr Fischer raised and asked Judge De Wet if it was not possible to have this witness give all of his evidence at once, as was the standard practice in legal proceedings, and not be dealt with piecemeal. When asked his reasons for this approach by the judge, Dr Yutar said that it was solely “just to avoid the task and the monotony of having to read a whole lot of documents at one stage” and that is why he decided to intersperse them. Whilst both Judge De Wet and Mr Fischer did not believe that this would necessarily prejudice the defence, Mr Fischer did warn that it would lead to a further backlog of documentary evidence and, by extension, delays in court proceedings in the future.
Cross-examination reserved.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
At the outset of Abel Mthembu’s examination-in-chief he is warned by the court that the state thinks he may be regarded as an accomplice with the accused. As such, the law provides that if he gave satisfactory evidence he would not be prosecuted on the charges which were currently before the court.
Abel Mthembu joined the ANC in 1954 and was a member until the organisation was banned in 1960. Abel Mthembu stayed in Basutoland from August, 1961, until January, 1963, because he was ill and was unable to tell Mr Krog what was happening in regard to the ANC and the wider liberation movement at this time. When he returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963, he met with named co-conspirator Joe Modise and was told by him that a new organisation had been formed called Umkhonto we Sizwe. Joe Modise was said to have explained to Abel Mthembu about some of the acts of sabotage which MK had carried out on 16th December, 1961, and that they were working together with the ANC.
Upon hearing of these acts of sabotage carried out by MK, Abel Mthembu claimed to have asked Joe Modise directly if the ANC had dropped its policy of non-violence, and if so why this was the case. Joe Modise said that the higher authorities would explain the situation to Abel Mthembu and shortly after, in the evening, he took Abel Mthembu to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia to meet with Joe Slovo. In addition to Joe Slovo, Abel Mthembu claimed that Walter Sisulu was in the Thatched Cottage on the evening he first arrived at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia.
Abel Mthembu told the court that once in the Thatched Cottage, Joe Slovo explained the formation and purpose of MK to him in the following way:
“He went on to say that Umkonto We Ziswe was the child of the African National Congress. Further he said that Umkonto We Ziswe was formed for that portion to carry out sabotage acts, and that they had to take care that people should not get killed or injured. That is, it does not mean member of Umkonto We Ziswe only, all people. Whilst they are committing sabotage acts, they must see that people don’t get killed and injured.”
It was undoubtedly important for the defence that this key state witness, like Bruno Mtolo, stressed the instructions to avoid harm to human beings without being prompted to do so by leading questions. Abel Mthembu claimed to have then asked Joe Slovo if the ANC had in fact now adopted the policy of violent struggle. He was told that the issue had been discussed by the Executives of the ANC, the Congress Alliance, and President Luthuli, and it had been decided that the struggle was now in its “second phase [which] was that of committing sabotage, but in such a manner that people did not get injured”.
Mr Krog pushed Abel Mthembu to give a clear answer as to what had been decided by these various bodies but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who interjected, “Well, that he said Mr Krog. He said they had now decided to come to violence”, to which Mr Krog replied, “Thank you my Lord”. This is interesting because the clarity of this answer did not come from Abel Mthembu himself, but from what Judge De Wet had inferred from his statement about the struggle having entered its second stage.
Abel Mthembu claimed that Joe Slovo then told him that he was to be a member of the Johannesburg Regional Command which already included Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson who was Chairman. He was informed that his specific duties would be to recruit young Africans to be sent out of the Republic for military training and, thereafter, return to carry out the work of MK. In addition to this task, as a member of the Regional Command Abel Mthembu was also responsible co-ordinating and administering between the various sabotage groups in the Johannesburg area.
All this, as well as the strict secrecy required from members of the Regional Command, was communicated to Abel Mthembu by Joe Slovo on the first occasion he went to Rivonia. Although Joe Modise and Walter Sisulu were said to have made some contributions to the discussion, Abel Mthembu could not remember anything they had said in particular.
The second time Abel Mthembu was taken to Rivonia by Joe Modise he was met in the Thatched Cottage by Jack Hodgson. Jack Hodgson repeated the information given by Joe Slovo and added that he and Elias Motsoaledi were on the Technical Committee of the Johannesburg Regional Command. In addition to this Jack Hodgson explained that he was in charge of the sabotage groups in the towns and Elias Motsoaledi was in charge of those in the locations. Furthermore, he was told that for each three groups there was a Platoon leader who would correspond with their respective supervisor from the Regional Command.
While some of this was told to Abel Mthembu by Jack Hodgson at Rivonia, a significant portion to this discussion took place at a house near Hillbrow, No. 23 Empire Road. It was at this location that Jack Hodgson instructed Abel Mthembu on how to prepare black powder. On the second occasion Abel Mthembu was taken by Jack Hodgson to No. 23 Empire Road they were met by Elias Motsoaledi and Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. During this meeting Jack Hodgson introduced Andrew Mlangeni to Abel Mthembu as “the would-be transport officer”.
Abel Mthembu told the court of meetings between himself, Elias Motsoaledi, and Jack Hodgson, in which they planned acts of sabotage in Johannesburg and Pretoria. In particular he described the acts of sabotage submitted as Item No.148 of Annexure B but Mr Krog was forced to concede to the court that “the date there [in Annexure B] is given as January, which does not correspond with this evidence”. This was because Abel Mthembu’s evidence suggested that this, and other sabotage attacks, took place between February and May, 1963.
After a series of sabotage attacks, some successful and others not, Jack Hodgson was placed under house arrest and Abel Mthembu had to take up his responsibilities of corresponding with the High Command at Rivonia. For this reason Abel Mthembu returned to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia and met Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Govan Mbeki gave Abel Mthembu the instructions that he was to go to Germiston and meet recruits coming from across the country. He would recognise the leaders of each of these groups by a signal – the opening and closing of a small umbrella – and a secret code word.
On one occasion Abel Mthembu was instructed by Andrew Mlangeni accompany him to meet Bruno Mtolo who, he was told, was coming to attend a SACTU conference and to receive training. Andrew Mlangeni supposedly said that they should go to meet this person from Durban personally to see if he was a trustworthy and desirable person. As such the two went to Levy Siloro’s house were they met Bruno Mtolo, and having satisfied themselves that he was not a spy, they left and Andrew Mlangeni made the necessary arrangements for Bruno Mtolo’s training.
Sometime after this first meeting, Bruno Mtolo was brought to Abel Mthembu’s house by Levy Siloro and said that he wanted to meet with the High Command. Abel Mthembu told Bruno Mtolo that in order to go to the High Command one needed to have an invitation. The next day Abel Mthembu went to Rivonia and told Govan Mbeki about Bruno Mtolo’s request to visit the High Command. Govan Mbeki asked if Bruno Mtolo had come with another person and Abel Mthembu replied that he had not. Nevertheless Govan Mbeki told Abel Mthembu to bring Bruno Mtolo to Rivonia the following day.
Abel Mthembu borrowed Mrs Winnie Mandela’s car and took Bruno Mtolo to the Thatched Cottage at Rivonia were he introduced him to Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilton Mgwai. Needing to return Winnie Mandela’s car, Abel Mthembu left shortly after he had made introductions and was not party to the discussion which ensued in the Thatched Cottage thereafter. The only discussion he claimed to have had before leaving was with Govan Mbeki and Bruno Mtolo concerning the batch of recruits who were not met at Germiston by Abel Mthembu. According to Abel Mthembu he had been given the wrong date by Govan Mbeki but Govan Mbeki simply stated that it “was not important now” and the conversation was concluded.
Abel Mthembu identified Wilton Mgwai, also known as Bree-Bree [Bri-Bri], as having come from Port Elizabeth and having previously been one of the accused during the Treason Trial. He went on to explain that Walter Sisulu was also known by the name Allah, Ahmed Kathrada went by the name Pedro, and Govan Mbeki was sometimes called Dlamini. He could not recall other occasions when he visited Liliesleaf Farm but did mention that he had seen Bruno Mtolo on two other occasions. The first was at the Germiston Station where Bruno Mtolo borrowed R10 from Abel Mthembu not long after the two had gone to Rivonia together; and the second, was when Bruno Mtolo come with the police and pointed the witness out as Abel Mthembu, resulting in his immediate arrest.
Abel Mthembu described going with the police and pointing out the places he had visited at Rivonia, No.23 Empire Road, S.K. Building, Winnie Mandela’s house, and Andrew Mlangeni’s house. He did this because the police had suggested that he was lying in his statement and did not know the places he claimed to have visited.
In closing his examination-in-chief Mr Krog asks Abel Mthembu to explain to the court exactly what he did in regard to his responsibility of recruiting young Africans for military training. Abel Mthembu stated that he had recruited one young man by the name of Vincent Makubo but, other than that, he had nothing to do with recruits being sent out of the Republic.
At this stage Mr Krog completes his examination-in-chief and court is adjourned until Wednesday morning at 10:00am.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3B/150b) (Vol.50/4A/1c) (Vol.50/4A/2c) (Vol.50/4A/3c) (Vol.50/4A/4c) (Vol.50/4A/5c) (Vol.50/4B/6c) (Vol.50/4B/7c) (Vol.50/4B/8c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Mr Y, Johannesburg Regional Command, Rivonia Exhibits, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Govan Mbeki, Elias Motsoaledi, Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Jack Hodgson, MK, High Command.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Patrick Abel Mthembu, Herbert Hodes and Theodoras Palus
Chronological
None
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at National Film, and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM.
Description
Court proceedings began with a request from Dr Yutar that before the court is cleared for the cross-examination of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, he would like to first call eight witnesses, mostly business men and women, to give short testimonies. Judge De wet agreed with this suggestion and there was no objection from the defence. All of these witnesses gave evidence relating directly to Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and the interactions them had with him whilst operating under the alias Mr D. Williams.
The testimony of these witnesses painted a picture of Denis Goldberg, as Mr Williams, going to a number of companies and getting quotations and samples of materials which were used for the manufacturing of bombs, landmines, hand grenades, and other articles used for sabotage and guerrilla warfare. It was during the testimonies of these witnesses that the issue of identification caused by the lack of facial hair on Denis Goldberg in the dock arose once again.
Only two of this group of eight witnesses called did not give evidence of business interactions with Mr Williams and instead gave testimonies concerning vehicles parked at the Mountain View, Travallyn, and Rivonia properties.
Mr Berrange and Mr Fischer cross-examine a few of the above mentioned witnesses before Mr Berrange stated the cross-examination of Abel Mthembu. Abel Mthembu is only partially cross-examined on this day as Dr Yutar successfully applied to interrupt proceedings in order to deal with one additional witness who was meant to have testified that morning. As the defence had no objection the further cross-examination of Abel Mthembu was held over until the following day.
Witnesses Called
26th State Witness: Mrs Nola Batchelder – Housewife, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
Nola Batcheldar made a report to the Lindhurst police, on the 10th of September, 1963, that a vehicle with the number plate T.J. 116-355 had been parked in the same spot for two weeks. As a result of her report the car was removed the following day by the police. The car had been parked about four miles away from the Mountain View suburb.
Following an extremely brief questioning by Mr Krog, which elucidated the above information from Nola Batcheldar, Mr Fischer raised and commented that he could not see the purpose of this evidence. Mr Krog explained that the evidence was that this vehicle had links to the Rivonia and Mountain View properties and was abandoned at the location near Nola Batcheldar’s house.
Following this Mr Fischer states that there was no cross-examination at this stage. As Nola Batcheldar had to go care for her young children she was immediately released from the court and told that she may be asked to return at a later date.
No cross-examination was ultimately required.
27th State Witness: Herbert Hodes – Manager, Hubby’s Car Spares.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
As managing director of the firm Hubby’s Car Spares Herbert Hodes had dealings with Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, who wanted to buy caste iron. Herbert Hodes told Denis Goldberg that they did not sell such material to individuals, only to factories. A few months later, in June, 1963, Herbert Hodes was introduced to Denis Goldberg by Mr Katz who called him Mr Williams. After this Herbert Hodes learnt that Mr Williams was looking to by an engine for a Kombi and offered to sell him one.
Herbert Hodes charged Mr Williams for the engine and delivered it to him. In addition to a certain amount of cash he also received the old Kombi engine from Denis Goldberg. In concluding his examination-in-chief Herbert Hodes recalled that when Denis Goldberg had enquired about purchasing caste iron he had giving him a quote of about R18 to R20 per ton.
Cross-examination reserved.
28th State Witness: Theodorus Palus – Clerk, Johannesburg Licencing Department.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
As an employee of the Johannesburg City Council in the Licencing Department Theodorus Palus was used by the state to link certain vehicles to the persons, places, and companies implicated in the charges of this case. The first vehicle, an Austin van with the number plate T.J. 116-355, was said to have been registered in the name of Navian (Pty) Ltd, with the address Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, and signed by V. Ezra as director of Navian (Pty) Ltd.
The second vehicle identified was registered under the number T.J. 145-279 and was a 1957 model Chevrolet owned by Accused No.6, Lionel Bernstein. The next vehicle, registered T.J. 142-838, was a 1960 model Volkswagen Kombi in the name of Don Williams (No. 33 of Exhibit B). Followed by a Vauxhall Velox, registered T.J. 173-728, in the name of Alexander Hepple, which was changed to T.W. 8619 on 6th of January, 1963 (No.32 in Exhibit B). Next was a Taunas car registered in the name of Michael Alan Harmel with the number T.J. 171-236. The final vehicle identified was another Volkswagen Komi, registered under the number T.J. 56959, under the name of Mrs. Ray Taibe Harmel, who was Michael Harmel’s wife.
Mr Fischer informs the court that there will probably be no cross-examination requested but the defence did not admit that the evidence given by this witness was admissible.
29th State Witness: Desmond Todd – Salesman, F.W. MacKenzie Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Desmond Todd, like the witness before him, recognised Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, as Mr Williams. According to Desmond Todd Denis Goldberg had come into his office and enquired about purchasing “wooden shooks” for the purpose of making boxes. Desmond Todd and his colleagues drew up quotations and creating sample boxes for Mr Williams without any knowledge of the purpose these boxes were to be used for. A document submitted as Exhibit T. 3, a record of this correspondence between Mr William and F.W. MacKenzie Ltd, was said to have been found on the Travallyn.
Dr Yutar concludes by informing Desmond Todd that he may require him to come back at a later stage to see if the landmine found at Liliesleaf Farm made use of the same type of box he was involved in creating a sample of for Mr Williams. From the amount of timber Mr Williams was quoted for he would have been able to create 48 000 of these boxes.
Cross-examination reserved.
30th State Witness: Frederick Milburn – Manager, Phoenix Foundry.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Frederick Milburn worked at a firm which manufactured and supplied general casting to the mining industry. Like the two witnesses who proceeded him, Frederick Milburn gave evidence of a Mr Williams requesting quotations and samples of objects which could be used for bombs, landmines, and other explosives used for sabotage. Frederick Milburn was required to produce a sketch (Exhibit 66) and a sample (Exhibit 12) of the castings Mr Williams said he would require a few hundred thousand of.
Dr Yutar informs Frederick Milburn that the state would be submitting to the court a book found in the dining room at Rivonia which had the name of his firm in it. In addition to this the book made reference to Bentonite, a chemical used to produce moulds, and Ash Brothers firm who were the main suppliers of this substance. Lastly, Dr Yutar asks Frederick Milburn to comment on two sketches submitted to the court, one of which he thought was a receiver of sand for mould making (Exhibit T. 5), and the other of which he could not identify (T. 6).
While this witness could not identify any of the accused in the dock, he did identify Denis Goldberg’s photograph in Exhibit D as being of Mr Williams.
Cross-examination reserved.
31st State Witness: Leon Ruff – Technical Manager, Aerflow (Pty) Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Similarly to the previous witness, Leon Ruff, was not confidently able to identify any of the accused in the dock but was confident the photograph 3 of Exhibit D was Mr Williams. Leon Ruff had been approached by Mr Williams in April, 1963, and asked to give a verbal quotation for a fan or a blower. Leon Ruff gave the quotation to Mr Williams and had little else by way of evidence to offer to the state.
Cross-examination reserved.
32nd State Witness: Franz Marabec – Manager, Bosworths Steel Structures (Pty) Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
As with most other witnesses on this day, Franz Marabec gave evidence about interactions he had had with Mr Williams. According to Franz Marabec he only spoke to Mr Williams for about five minutes in which time he told Mr Williams that his firm was too busy to make the small cupola (furnace for melting steel) he required. Franz Marabec then put Mr Williams in touch with Mrs Levanos who gave him a copy of the drawing of a cupola (Exhibit T. 7) which was also found at Travallyn.
No Cross-examination.
33rd State Witness: Mrs Anita Levanos – Draughtswoman, Bosworths Steel Structures (Pty) Ltd.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Anita Levanos confirmed that she, in her capacity as a draughtswoman at Bosworths firm, was instructed to provide Mr Williams with a drawing of a small cupola. Anita Levanos claimed to have some all of the drawings of cupolas the firm had to Mr Williams and made him a copy of their smallest-sized model. The drawing Anita Levanos had copied for Mr Williams was still too large for his requirements but he took it regardless and told her he would be taking it to another firm to be made up.
No Cross-examination.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
In cross-examining Abel Mthembu Mr Berrange paints a picture of widespread “restlessness” growing amongst Africans across the country at the time when Abel Mthembu returned to Johannesburg in January, 1963. Abel Mthembu confirms that this was the case adding “… Sikukuneland in 1963, the Transkei 1960, the schools got burnt down, buildings, and after that there were sporadic acts of violence in various parts all over the country”. Mr Berrange then puts it to Abel Mthembu that the MK had been created in order “to control and direct the violence that was then already taking place”.
This attempt to reframe the nature and purpose of MK was unsuccessful as Abel Mthembu insisted that, as far as he knew, the MK was established to carry out its own operations, those which the ANC could not carry out itself, not to carry on with violence that was already present in the Republic. However, Mr Berrange was able to reiterate the point that Abel Mthembu was told “on more than one occasion, that such violence as Umkonto directed, should not result in injury to people”.
Mr Berrange spent a significant amount of time establishing that Abel Mthembu considered himself to be a devoted member of the ANC and MK. This was evidenced by the fact that during the whole of his first 90 day detention in Marshal Square Prison Abel Mthembu refused to make any statement about the ANC or MK to the police. Abel Mthembu was released in August and re-arrested in October when Bruno Mtolo pointed him out to police at his home in Dube from where he was taken eventually to Langlaagte Prison, where he remained as a prisoner at the time of the trial.
Abel Mthembu claimed that “As a result of the fact that Bruno pointed me out, I realised that there was nothing more for me now to hide, because they evidently knew”. Once under arrest for the second time, Abel Mthembu claimed to have denied all knowledge of the ANC and MK for the first few days but ultimately decided to make a statement to the police.
Mr Berrange then draws attention to the instructions Abel Mthembu claimed to have been given by Govan Mbeki at Rivonia to go and meet with recruits in Germiston on the 4th, 11th, and 18th, of May, 1963. Abel Mthembu told the court that when he received these instructions from Mbeki they were given in “European language” because Abel Mthembu spoke Sesotho and Govan Mbeki spoke isiXhosa, which are not mutually understandable. Mr Berrange pushed extremely hard to get Abel Mthembu to admit that he could have potentially have spoken to Govan Mbeki in isiZulu or another African language in the Thatched Cottage. It was important for Mr Berrange to get this, albeit hesitant, answer from Abel Mthembu as it was essential for justifying Ahmed Kathrada’s claim that he, not understanding African languages, was never involved in or paying attention to any conversations at Rivonia conducted in such languages.
Further cross-examination reserved.
27th State Witness: Herbert Hodes – Manager, Hubby’s Car Spares. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
Mr Fischer comments that the witness was unable to provide any exact dates in his evidence and asked if he had any notes stored elsewhere detailing the dates of the events he spoke of. Herbert Hodes informed the court that there were notes of transactions at his office but Mr Fischer stated that these would not necessarily help identify the date one which he first met Mr Williams who he claimed to be Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg. Mr Fischer said this was important because they had evidence that Denis Goldberg was not in Johannesburg during April, 1963, and thus could not have been this person if the meeting took place during that month. Herbert Hodes told Mr Fischer that he simply could not confidently recall the date and was asked no further questions.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar merely confirms that the witness has no dates for this first meeting.
28th State Witness: Theodorus Palus – Clerk, Johannesburg Licencing Department. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief continued by Mr Krog.
Theodorus Palus was recalled to hand in photo static copies of the sets of documents associated with each of the vehicles identified and discussed during his first appearance on this day. They are submitted to the court, in the order they were originally discussed, as Exhibits HH, JJ, KK, LL, MM, and NN.
No cross-examination.
30th State Witness: Frederick Milburn – Manager, Phoenix Foundry. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief continued by Dr Yutar.
Frederick Milburn was recalled in order to provide expert insight into a number of sketches and diagrams found at Travallyn. These sketches and diagrams (Exhibits T. 8, T. 9, and T. 10, in particular) concerned cupolas, castings, and other materials which Frederick Milburn claimed could have been used for the manufacturing of landmines, bombs, and other items to be used for sabotage.
No cross-examination.
31st State Witness: Leon Ruff – Technical Manager, Aerflow (Pty) Ltd. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
Mr Fischer asks Leon Ruff the same question he put to Herbert Hodes – if he had any notes of the dates which he referred to in his evidence-in-chief. As with Herbert Hodes, Leon Ruff did not have any note of the exact date and said that his first meeting with Mr Williams could have been at the end of May or the beginning of June, 1963.
No re-examination.
25th State Witness: Patrick Abel Mthembu – Saboteur, Regional Command, Johannesburg. (Recalled).
Further cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Mr Berrange returns attention to the occasion on which Abel Mthembu introduced Bruno Mtolo to Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Kathrada, and Wilson Mkwyi, and asked Abel Mthembu if Walter Sisulu appeared to be in a hurry to leave. Abel Mthembu said that no such indication was given to him whilst he was in the Thatched Cottage.
Mr Berrange then questioned Abel Mthembu about the instructions he had been given by Govan Mbeki regarding meeting recruits at Germiston. At this point Abel Mthembu mentioned for the first time that the intention was for him to meet these recruits and take them to Andrew Mlangeni. When asked several times by Mr Berrange if he was ever concerned when the groups of recruits he was instructed to meet never arrived, Abel Mthembu simply responded that he was not very concerned at all because this had happened on the very first occasion. When asked why he had waited at least two weeks before reporting to Govan Mbeki at the High Command that the last batch of recruits had not arrived as instructed, Abel Mthembu gave a half-hearted response indicating that he just wasn’t worried about it.
Mr Berrange then put it to Abel Mthembu, “that the reason that [he] never made any report of this sort, to Mbeki, is due to the fact that you never received any such instructions from Mbeki, whoever else you might have received them from”. Abel Mthembu responded that he had received the instructions from Govan Mbeki and this was evidenced by the fact that Bruno Mtolo asked him why these recruits had not been fetched. Mr Berrange then responded, “You see that leads me to the other point – it’s that this discussion which you say that you had with Mbeki on the occasion when you took Mtolo, Bruno, to Mbeki has not been testified to at all by Bruno: He never said one word of it!”.
Another claim made by Abel Mthembu for the very first time during his examination-in-chief was that Jack Hodgson had told him that the High Command was at Rivonia. Mr Krog attempted to dispute this point but Mr Berrange argued that the inconsistency in Abel Mthembu’s answers in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination were indications that he was either confused or tailoring his evidence to fit with that of other state witnesses.
The witness is free to go and free from prosecution as far as the court was concerned.
No re-examination.
Court is adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/5A/9c) (Vol.50/5A/10c) (Vol.50/5A/11c) (Vol.50/5A/12c) (Vol.50/5A/13c) (Vol.50/5B/14c) (Vol.50/5B/15c) (Vol.50/5B/16c) (Vol.50/5B/17c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 22nd January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Abel Mthembu (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
A. Mthembu Evidence (AD1844.A11.5).
B.
Key Words
Key State Witness, Abel Mthembu, Denis Goldberg, Mr Williams, Sabotage, Explosives, MK, Vehicles.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.
In 1877 the South African Republic (Die Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek) established a High Court in Pretoria. After the Second Anglo-Boer War (South African War) it was renamed the Supreme Court of the Transvaal and in 1910 it became the Transvaal Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In terms of the 1996 South African Constitution its name was changed to High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division. A further name change took place in 2009 when the court was renamed the North Gauteng High Court. Through restructuring in 2013 the North Gauteng High Court (situated in Pretoria) and South Gauteng High Court (situated in Johannesburg) became the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.
Published
Patrick Abel Mthembu , Herbert Hodes and Theodoras Palus
Chronological
Archival
None
The Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Division transferred the
dictabelts to the National Archives Repository in 1996. The dictabelts
are an obsolete format and not accessible for research. In terms of a
bilateral agreement between the DAC and the French Audio-Visual Institute in Paris these dictabelts were digitized between April 2014 and February 2017.
Original dictabelt available at the National Archives Repository.
WAV and mp3 files available at the National Film, Video and Sound Archives.
Open for access
Written permission by the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa.
NARSSA database and AtoM
Description
On this day Dr Yutar continued his examination of D/Sgt du Preez and a number of documents seized during the Rivonia raid which were in the hand writing of Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela. In particular, Dr Yutar reads extensively from Nelson Mandela’s dairy and manuscript of a book he had drafted on the idea and practice of Communism as well as a number of documents concerning revolutionary struggles in other colonised and formerly colonised countries. The court is informed by Dr Yutar that D/Sgt du Preez would only be asked to justify his identification of several of the accused’s handwriting at a later stage in the Trial.
Following D/Sgt du Preez the State called one of its key witnesses Patrick Abel Mthembu. According to Kenneth Broun (2012: 60), “The defendants were the most troubled personally by the testimony of Mr. Y, Abel Mthembu, as he was the only person of any standing in the ANC who could be persuaded to testify for the state”. Dr Yutar applied to have Abel Mthembu give his evidence in camera. Judge De Wet agreed to clear the court but told Dr Yutar that he did not think that this tactic was proving very effective at protecting the identity of these witnesses. Jude De Wet argued that their names would inevitably get leaked to the public.
Mr Fischer added that, despite having been largely absent from court until this day, he believed that this practice of evidence being given in camera was resulting in an infringement of the general rights of the accused’s friends and family to attend the proceedings. Judge De Wet didn’t really give much of a response to Mr Fischer and decided to have the courtroom cleared.
During a brief pause in Abel Mthembu’s evidence, Mr Berrange takes the opportunity to ask Judge De Wet for permission to have the following day off. Mr Berrange argued that the time was need to consult with the accused in regard to the evidence this witness was giving. Following from Mr Berrange, Mr Coaker raised and asked for permission to take four to six weeks leave from the Trial on the basis of Dr Yutar’s information that the witnesses called during this time would have no bearing on Accused No.8, James Kantor. Both requests are agreed to by Judge De Wet and the examination of Abel Mthembu continued.
Witnesses Called
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began by reminding the court that at the end of the previous day he had just completed dealing with Exhibit R. 16 and now intended to move on to the final document found in the Coal shed at Rivonia, Exhibit R. 17 Nelson Mandela’s Diary. Dr Yutar explains that all the words appearing in brackets on the document were inserted by police, who would testify to their meaning at a later stage in the trial, otherwise the document was identified as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
Dr Yutar read extensively from Nelson Mandela’s diary beginning with the first entry on 3rd January, 1962, detailing a meeting with the NE (National Executive). During his reading of the dairy Dr Yutar informs the court that police evidence would show that the initials A.J. referred to Chief Albert Luthuli, H.J. was Helen Joseph, Govani was Nokwe, Konini [sounds like Komila] was Walter Sisulu, and K. was Ahmed Kathrada.
The last batch of exhibits handed in by Dr Yutar on this day were those found in Arthur Goldreich’s Studio at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. The first of these was Exhibit R. 18, a document in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela concerning the early military organisation of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, an Israeli Zionist paramilitary organization operating in Palestine.
The next to be handed in was Exhibit R. 19, a foolscap size exercise book in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela dealing with the an underground military organisation operating in the Philippines called Huk Balahap. In addition to this, the document also contained at its conclusion an article headed “On War” by von Clausewitz.
Exhibit R. 20 was a 62 page “Croxley” Examination Pad with the heading “Part One – How to be a Good Communist” written by Nelson Mandela. Listed below are some of the extracts Dr Yutar read aloud to the court from this exhibit:
On page 2 (page 259):
“In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its polices.”
On page 5 (page 260):
“We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing society and the world.”
On page 21 (page 266):
“In South Africa, a Communist Party member must take part in mass struggles initiated by the S.A.C.P., the Congress Movement, or by other political bodies within the liberation movement.”
On pages 26 and 27 (page 268):
“… the Communist movement still faces powerful enemies which must be completely crushed and wiped out from the face of the earth before a Communist world can be realised. Without a hard, bitter and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world.”
On pages 30 and 31 (page 270)
“To sacrifice one’s personal interests and even one’s life without the slightest hesitation for the cause of the Party is the highest manifestation of Communist ethics.”
Exhibit R 21 was an 18 page “Croxley” Examination Pad headed “Chapter Two – Dialectical Materialism” and was a continuation of meditation on Communism which was initiated by Nelson Mandela in Exhibit R 20. Once again, listed below are some of the extracts from this document read aloud to the court by Dr Yutar:
On pages 7 and 8 (pages 284 and 285):
“But the policy of the Nationalist Government, which forcibly suppresses the peaceful struggles of the people, has created new conditions under which nonviolent and peaceful methods of struggle have become inadequate to advance the struggle of the people and to defend their rights. Under these new conditions, it is easy to understand why the masses of the people are searching for a new formula of political struggle which will enable them to hit back effectively and halt the violent and reactionary policies of the Government. Whilst in the past it was correct to preach non-violence, under present conditions it is not correct to go on stressing it as if not