Item Belt 43c - PDF - Zizi Njikalane, Lieutenant Theunis Jacobus Swanepoel

Description

Proceedings began on this day with Dr Yutar stressing to the court, once again, that the safety of certain witnesses from Port Elizabeth was under serious threat and that he wished for them to give evidence in camera. In response to this request Judge De Wet informs Dr Yutar that on that morning an article had been published in the popular Afrikaans newspaper, the Transvaaler, which gave the name of state witness Zizi Njikalane despite his explicit orders not to do so. Dr Yutar claimed that he was not aware that this had happened and Judge De Wet told him, rather sternly, that if the press did not obey the orders of this court they would be excluded henceforth from proceedings. Judge De Wet said that he would like to find out why that instruction was not carried out by the Transvaaler reporter, and why the name of the witness has been published, to which Dr Yutar responded that he would follow up on the issue and let the Judge know later in the day.

Mr Fisher then added that there was another matter in which, “there had again been a report in an afternoon paper of a statement of fact about the case which in my submission is clearly contempt. The newspapers seem to think that they can publish matters about co-conspirators as if they were statements of fact that have been found by this court and that is certainly not so my lord. It clearly effects the case whether it is an accused or a co-conspirator”. To Mr Fischer’s statement Judge De Wet gave the following reply:

“It’s very often ignorance on the part of the reporter, Mr Fischer, but it is most unsatisfactory, of course, that the reports are not done correctly. You see, judges have had continuous difficulty with the press report that which is not factual as it is inclined to make propaganda one way or the other, and that of course the court will not count in its decisions.”

Judge De Wet then ordered for the court to be cleared for Zizi Njikalane to be recalled for further examination-in-chief by Mr Krog. Following from Zizi Njikalane, Lieut. Swanepoel was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Berrange. Lieut. Swanepoel holds an infamous place in South African history as one of the most notorious and prolific interrogators for the Security Branch in Johannesburg. In his cross-examination Mr Berrange attempted to get Lieut. Swanepoel to concede to a number of well-known tactics of interrogation taught to officers during a special 90day detention training course. Lieut. Swanepoel, perhaps as was expected, was an extremely unhelpful witness for the defence and on serval occasions made Mr Berrange more frustrated than he had been with any previous witness.

Witnesses Called

48th State Witness: Zizi Njikalane – ANC Member, Port Elizabeth. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.

Mr Krog began by recalling the last meeting mentioned by Zizi Njikalane which allegedly took place in New Brighton during May, 1961, with George Tsambula acting as Chairman. According to Zizi Njikalane at this meeting George Tsambula complained that although there were many people present at the meeting, only a few were official ANC members because the majority had not paid their monthly membership fee and received their ticket. According to Zizi Njikalane, under the new system, ANC membership cards were no longer given out and members received a monthly ticket after making payments instead. Although Raymond Mhlaba was said to have spoken at this meeting Mr Krog did not push Zizi Njikalane to give details about this meeting.

By way of concluding his examination Mr Krog asked Zizi Njikalane if he knew what position Joseph Jack held within the ANC to which the witness responded, none that he was aware of. Finally Zizi Njikalane confirmed that he knew Vuyisile Mini but not of his activities with the ANC.

Mr Fischer requested that the witness stand down for cross-examination at a later stage.

45th State Witness: Lieutenant T.J. Swanepoel – Special Branch Interrogator. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Lieut. Swanepoel was recalled by Dr Yutar in order to submit a number of the exhibits which had been found in the raid of Mountain View discussed during his evidence on the previous day. The first to be submitted was Exhibit M 27a which was the brunt remains of a booklet entitled, “Programme of the South African Communist Party”. Lieut. Swanepoel was certain that the remains were of this booklet in particular because he was able to examine it in comparison to a similar copy of “Programme of the South African Communist Party” found in the lounge of Rivonia. Thereafter Dr Yutar submitted Exhibits M 27b and M 27c which were burnt portions of documents also found in the compost heap at Mountain View.

With each exhibit Lieut. Swanepoel is asked to read out to the court those portion of the documents which were legible. In doing so Lieut. Swanepoel sporadically read out words such as “Bolshevist”, “Comrades”, “Congress”, “Revolutionary”, “Central Com”, “Liberate”, “Black Liberation”, and others, which appeared as legible, with a few incomplete sentences, on the documents recovered from the compost heap. Lieut. Swanepoel said that he believed the words “the Duma” appearing on one of the documents was a reference to the Secretary General of the ANC, Nokwe Duma.

The cardboard box containing these remains of burnt documents was submitted as Exhibit M 27 and Lieut. Swanepoel claimed that these were the documents he was referring to as communistic literature during the first day of his examination-in-chief.

Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.

Mr Berrange begins by focusing on the bunt documents Lieut. Swanepoel described as communistic literature. Mr Berrange suggested that the printed book could have in fact been a history text book. Lieut. Swanepoel refused to concede to this suggestion. Mr Berrange persisted with this line and told Lieut. Swanepoel it was very important because in his examination-in-chief he had claimed that the word ANC had appeared on these documents. On this day when the documents had been produced in court, however, Lieut. Swanepoel could not find ANC written anywhere. In addition to this, Mr Berrange continued, Lieut. Swanepoel had made another direct between these documents and the ANC by claiming that the legible phrase “of the Duma” was a reference to ANC Secretary General, Duma Nokwe. Mr Berrange insisted that it was obvious that the phase the Duma had nothing to do with Duma Nokwe but Lieut. Swanepoel resolutely maintained that it was a possibility. Having become increasingly frustrated with the unhelpful attitude of the witness Mr Berrange eventually asks, “Well do people refer to you as ‘the Swanepoel’?” to which Lieut. Swanepoel replied they did not.

Mr Berrange worked extremely hard to get even the most hesitant acceptance from Lieut. Swanepoel that the words he had read out to the court could have come from either a history text book or a critique of communist theory and philosophy. Thereafter he turns his attention to the arrests of the Kreels and, more significantly, the detention of Eva Hlongwane. Mr Berrange puts it to Lieut. Swanepoel, “you certainly wouldn’t keep a person a minute longer if you were satisfied that he or she had answered you truthfully, or would you?” Lieut. Swanepoel, not for the first time, tries to dodge the question and queries what its purpose was. Mr Berrange, with obvious traces of anger in his raised voice snapped in response, “Just answer my question please, Lieut. Swanepoel! That’s all, don’t try and ask me what I am getting at. If my question is not clear, ask me and I’ll try and make it clear to you, but don’t ask me what I am getting at, please!” He repeated his simple question and Lieut. Swanepoel responded that he personally would never hold a witness in detention for longer than necessary.

Having established this, Mr Berrange asked Lieut. Swanepoel why it was then the case that Eva Hlongwane – despite having made a statement within the first five days of her 90 day detention including every detail of evidence she had given in court – had been detained and repeatedly interrogated for more than 90 days. After a long silence Mr Berrange asks if the reason was perhaps to frighten and intimidate her or others. Lieut. Swanepoel refused to concede this and insisted that the 90 day detention was designed to give people an opportunity to be questioned and make a statement before being formally arrested.

Mr Berrange asked why Eva Hlongwane had eventually been released and Lieut. Swanepoel flatly refused to answer the question. Mr Berrange asked if he couldn’t or wouldn’t answer the question. Lieut. Swanepoel thought for a moment and then replied that he was not the right man to answer that question which should be put to the Commissioner of the SAP. Mr Berrange then asks Lieut. Swanepoel, as the investigating officer in-charge of the case, if he had not been the one who recommended that Eva Hlongwane be released which officer had. Once again Lieut. Swanepoel avoided giving a clear answer to any of the questions put to him and Mr Berrange was interrupted by Judge De Wet who asked him where this arduous line of questioning was going?

During a brief discussion between Mr Berrange and Judge De Wet it was established that the reason for Mr Berrange’s persistence was to bring into question the credibility of Eva Hlongwane’s evidence as a witness – knowing the nefarious physical and psychological conditions experienced under 90 day detention and, ‘the whole technique used for questioning detainees’. Mr Berrange becomes so frustrated with Lieut. Swanepoel in the course of his line of questioning concerning Eva Hlongwane that he states on several occasions “Your responses have nothing to do with my question!”

Mr Berrange then puts it to Lieut. Swanepoel that Bob Hepple had told him under interrogation that he used to be a communist but he no longer was one at the time of his detention. Lieut. Swanepoel refused this suggestion and maintained that Bob Hepple had told him, “I am a communist”.

Mr Berrange then turns attention to the four sheets of black material found in the Mountain View cottage which Lieut. Swanepoel had suggested in his evidence was used to disguise Harold Wolpe and Arthur Goldreich as priests to flee the country. Mr Berrange put it to Lieut. Swanepoel that the material could also have been used for other purposes such as making gowns for advocates. Lieut. Swanepoel agreed that this was so. Interestingly, at the mention of the idea that the material found at Mountain View could have been used to make advocate gowns, there is a stifled yet audible laugh from someone seated near the dictabelt recorder.

After questioning Lieut. Swanepoel about certain particulars regarding the raid at Mountain View and the different sets of keys handed in as exhibits to the court, Mr Berrange turns attention back to Lieut. Swanepoel’s role as primary interrogator of detainees associated with the Rivonia Trial. In particular, Mr Berrange makes reference to the interrogation of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, by Lieut. Swanepoel and D/Sgt Diedricks during his 90day detention. Mr Berrange reads from a statement made by Ahmed Kathrada describing the way in which the witness and his colleagues used well known tactics of inducement to try and get him to give evidence of which he had no knowledge.

Such tactics included, amongst others: telling the detainee that his accomplices had all made statements; asking him to make statements “off the record”; and, perhaps most significantly, telling him that if he cooperated and gave information he would have the change to leave the country and go to Europe. Lieut. Swanepoel refused to concede that any of the interactions described in Ahmed Kathrada’s interrogation may have been inducement.

Re-examination by Dr Yutar.

Dr Yutar focused on two points in his re-examination of Lieut. Swanepoel. The first was the black material found at Mountain View which, he clarifies for the court, in the opinion of Lieut. Swanepoel was used for the creation of Harold Wolpe and Arthur Goldreich’s priest gowns. The second point was that that the evidence that had been given by Lieut. Swanepoel was that Bob Hepple had admitted that he was a communist at the time of his detention.

Further cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Mr Berrange simply asked Lieut. Swanepoel a number of questions about the layout of the Mountain View Cottage before allowing the witness to stand down.

47th State Witness: Eva Hlongwane – House worker, Mountain View. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
Mr Fischer questions Eva Hlongwane about her time spent in detention and being interrogated. Eva Hlongwane explained that she was asked, usually once a week, to identify photographs and say if she had seen these people at Mountain View. Mr Fischer told Eva Hlongwane a short while into her cross-examination, “Eva, you needn’t be afraid, I just what… want to know what happened”. Eva Hlongwane replied that she understood but maintained that the she felt that the interrogating officers had believed her when she first made a statement and that her interrogations following that consisted of her being shown different photographs and trying to identify them.

Mr Fischer then questioned Eva Hlongwane about the time when Mr Don Williams told her he was going away and introduced her to the man she thought was Portuguese who would be taking his place as resident in the cottage. He confirmed with Eva that she had told Lieut. Swanepoel that she had believed that the Kreil’s had been crying (on the night documents were burned on the compost heap) because of an issue in relation to Mrs Kreil’s ill mother.

Re-examination by Mr Krog:
Mr Krog asks Eva Hlongwane if she had enquired as to why Mr and Mrs Kreil were crying on the night in question. Eva Hlongwane said that, assuming it had to do with Mrs Kreil’s ill mother, she had asked by received no explanation from her employers.

Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/8A/43c) (Vol.50/8B/44c) (Vol.50/8B/45c) (Vol.50/8B/46c) (Vol.50/8B/47c) (Vol.50/8B/48c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 28th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Zizi George Njikelani (Ms.385/4).
Evidence of Theunis Jacobus Swanepoel (Ms.385/4).
Evidence of Eva Hlongwane (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
G1 – G105: Evidence includes that by police detectives, and other State witnesses (AD1844.A8.1).
Evidence: E. Sebone, E. Hlongwane (AD1844.A11.7).
Evidence: Ziz (AD1844.A13.2)
Analysis of evidence: Lieut. Swanepoel (AD1844.A18.7).
Analysis of evidence: Eva Hlongwane (AD1844.A18.9).
Analysis of evidence: Zizi Njikelane (AD1844.A18.10).
Evaluation of evidence: Zisi Njikelane (AD1844.Ba13).

Key Words
East London, Port Elizabeth, ANC, Sabotage, Police Witnesses, Mountain View, Nelson Mandela, Govan Mbeki, Raymond Mhlaba.