Item Belt 125b - DB - Witness: Recall Bruno Mtolo

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.