Description
Proceedings began on this day with Mr Fischer’s continued cross-examination of Sikombuza Njikalane. The state then called a few short witnesses concerning Denis Goldberg before recalling Peter Peyise for some additional questions by Mr Krog and cross-examination by Mr Fischer. Just before Peter Peyise was recalled, Judge De Wet complained to Mr Krog about the fact that the police officers who had been invited to attend by the prosecution were looking half asleep in their chairs and, much to the frustration of the judge, were taking no notice when the court was supposed to be cleared.
The majority of this day was devoted to the cross-examination of police offices from Port Elizabeth. Furthermore, many significant references were made to the trial of Harold Strachan, Govan Mbeki, and Jack Joseph, and the contrasts in evidence given by certain state witnesses in that instance in comparison with their evidence in the Rivonia Trial.
Witnesses Called
49th State Witness: Sikombuza Njikalane – ANC Taxi Driver, Port Elizabeth. (Recalled).
Further cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
Upon resumption of his examination-in-chief, Sikombuza Njikalane picks up his narration of the events of 25th December, 1961, at the point when he had stopped his car next to a pedestrian bridge leading to a railway station outside New Brighton and refused to drive Joseph Jack, Benson Fihla and the bombs they were carrying any further.
Mr Fischer questioned the purpose of Sikombuza Njikalane’s leaving the car and walking to Govan Mbeki’s house and the defence would argue that there was no reason for this as all he needed to do was to tell the others to get out of the car or flatly refuse to drive on until the bombs were removed from the car. Furthermore, the defence would argue that Sikombuza Njikalane’s subsequent evidence about his receiving payment was also irrational. Sikombuza Njikalane said that he was told to stop and wait in the car while Joseph Jack walked to Govan Mbeki’s house to get the money. Yet the only plausible reason Joseph Jack would have done this would have been to keep the involvement of Mbeki in this venture a secret from Sikombuza Njikalane. This could not have been the case because Sikombuza Njikalane claimed to have already been to Govan Mbeki’s house and Mr Fischer made the claim that it was only because of suggestions by the police that Sikombuza Njikalane had worked Govan Mbeki into his story.
Mr Fischer tried to demonstrate that the movements and attitude of Sikombuza Njikalane, after he had been told about the bombs in his car, were improbable. Mr Fischer also put it to the witness that Govan Mbeki would say that the only occasion on which he was ever in Sikombuza Njikalane’s car was when he had been driven to a rugby match.
No re-examination.
105th State Witness: Basil Aaron Kantey – Employer of Denis Goldberg.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Basil Kantey was a partner in the firm Kantey & Templar which had employed Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, in a temporary capacity as a Civil Engineer in March, 1961. Denis Goldberg remained employed until May, 1963, when he stopped coming to work. Basil Kantey called Denis Goldberg’s wife, believing that he may have been sick, who made a report to him. However, no details of this report are discussed as Dr Yutar says, “Alright, we can’t hear what she told you” and moves on with his questioning. Basil Kantey said that he could not recalled Denis Goldberg ever looking as depicted in Photo No.3 of Exhibit D.
Cross-examination reserved.
106th State Witness: Sydney Harry Walter Venn – South African Reserve Bank.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Sydney Venn was the Head of the Note Department at the South African Reserve Bank. He gave evidence of 24 bank notes (21 being R20 notes and three were £5 notes) which had been given to the SARB by the Security Branch in order to establish when they were put into circulation. Sydney Venn said that 13 of these notes were received in August, 1961, and 11 cases were received after December, 1961. The SARB document detailing this information were handed in as Exhibit AM.
Dr Yutar informs the court that the evidence will be that these notes were found in a concealed safe in the study of Arthur Goldreich at Liliesleaf Farm.
No cross-examination.
51st State Witness: Peter Peyise – ANC Member, Port Elizabeth. (Recalled).
Further examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
Peter Peyise is asked by Mr Krog to look at a receipt book (Exhibit AN) which he confirmed looked like a receipt he had received for paying his ANC subscription. Mr Krog then asks Peter Peyise to look at a pamphlet headed “Umkhonto we Sizwe, the A.N.C. Spearheads Revolution Laballo No.” which he confirms was similar to ones he had handed out (Exhibit WW).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
The main point of contention in Peter Peyise’s cross-examination was the evidence he gave in regard to the conference he attended at Lobatse. Peter Peyise maintained that he had only attended the conference for one day but Mr Fischer informed him that the conference had in fact been a two-day event. More significantly Peter Peyise could not, under cross-examination, recall the fact that Govan Mbeki had opened the conference proceedings on the first day. This was dubious because Peter Peyise could remember being told at the outset that the Bechuanaland Security Police would be in attendance at the conference but could not recall that it was Govan Mbeki who had said this.
If fact the points recalled by Peter Peyise concerning the speeches given by Oliver Tambo, Govan Mbeki, and nobody else at the conference, were almost identical in every detail to the points recollected by former state witness Norman Dondashe – although Peter Peyise denies having ever discussed the conference with him. Importantly, in recalling what was said by Oliver Tambo, Peter Peyise was sure that he had not said that people had to fight, in a literal violent sense, for freedom in South Africa.
Peter Peyise was not a member of MK and his evidence was useful to the defence in as much as he supported the case that the ANC and MK were separate entities and that the NAC never changed its policy of non-violence. ANC members were told about the existence of MK but, as far as he knew, MK’s policy was to never cause injury to people.
Further cross-examination reserved.
105th State Witness: Basil Aaron Kantey – Employer of Denis Goldberg. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
Under cross-examination Basil Kantey commented on the character of Denis Goldberg and the quality of his work as an engineer. According to Basil Kantey, Denis Goldberg had been a “first class engineer” and very responsible man. Basil Kantey said that he and Denis Goldberg had once discussed the prospect of building roads in underdeveloped areas at a cheaper cost that that which was usual at the time. In connection with this conversation Denis Goldberg had taken the names of three engineers based in Bechuanaland.
51st State Witness: Peter Peyise – ANC Member, Port Elizabeth. (Recalled).
Further cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
Peter Peyise had been detained in October, 1963, and kept in solitary confinement until he was brought to Pretoria to give evidence. According to Peter Peyise he was questioned only once by the police shortly after his detainment and, although the police told him that they knew he and Norman Dondashe had attended a conference, they did not make any further suggestions to him.
No re-examination.
50th State Witness: Norman Dondashe – ANC Member, Port Elizabeth. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
Under cross-examination Norman Dondashe was asked to focus on the evidence he had given in regard the Lobatse Conference he purportedly attended. After recalling what had been said at the conference by Oliver Tambo and Govan Mbeki, Mr Fischer began to expose the improbability of the story being told by Norman Dondashe. Mr Fischer said at one point, “You see I want you to explain to this Court how it can possibly be that you remember only the two speakers that Peyise remembers, and you two remember practically the same things.” A short while later Mr Fischer goes on to say, “Isn’t it quite clear, Mr Dondashe, that somebody told you what to say”. Norman Dondashe was persistent in his denial that the police or other persons had told him what to say in his statement.
Like Peter Peyise, Norman Dondashe’s evidence was also somewhat useful for the defence’s case that the ANC and MK were separate organisations. Futhermore, Norman Dondashe stated that as MK members they were “told that we have to cut wires and Government property. We were not told that we would have to go to private people’s buildings”. Furtehrmore, Norman Dondashe had questioned the instructions to bomb the house of Manelli and only did it after a superior told him it was alright to do this. This was consistent with the defence’s case that the petrol bombing of private residences was not authorised by the ANC and was actually in contravention of its policies.
Notes of the defence suggest that they would argue that Norman Dondashe’s entire evidence regarding the Lobatse Conference was hearsay because he did not speak English and the events were interpreted to him by an unknown man who sat next to him at the conference and was not called to give evidence by the state. The notes go on to state “It is significant though that in such circumstances his recollection should be so similar to Peyise’s”.
No re-examination.
104th State Witness: Warrant Officer Johannes Jordaan – Security Branch, Port Elizabeth. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
W/O Jordaan was asked to look at Exhibit AO, which was a rough sketch of Port Elizabeth with the homes of Govan Mbeki, Joseph Jack, and certain other points marked clearly. Mr Fischer asked W/O Jordaan about Govan Mbeki and he responded, “I leaned to know Mbeki well. He is an intelligent man and as far as I know he is responsible. I respect him even though I disagree with his politics. I have never had trouble with him in all the time I was in P.E.”
In addition to the above W/O Jordaan stated that the Security Branch Offices were directly opposite the Court Chambers and that the Court Chambers were raided and searched on a regular, sometimes daily basis by the Security Branch police.
Under cross-examination W/O Jordaan admitted that as far as he knew the ANC had not altered its policy of non-violence and that although the MK did engage in acts of violence, its policy was not to injure people. However, W/O Jordaan said that “Notwithstanding the A.N.C.’s non-violent policy things happened such as burning of schools, 1952 riots, 1960 Pondoland huts burned, but I can only say what I know of from newspaper reports”. Here once again, the defence would probably have seen much of W/O Jordaan’s evidence in this regard as hearsay.
In concluding his cross-examination W/O Jordaan admitted that MK were not the only organisation in South Africa which made use of violent means of struggle. The Nationalist Committee of Uberahon and Poqo were two such violent organisations operating in South Africa.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Under re-examination, W/O Jordaan stated that he had never seen any of the documents found at either Rivonia or Travallyn before appearing in court.
No further cross-examination.
52nd State Witness: Detective Sergeant Johnathan Du Preez – Port Elizabeth. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer and Mr Berrange.
Mr Fischer begins his examination by prompting D/Sgt Du Preez to acknowledge that he had been in court when W/O Jordaan gave his evidence, in case it came up as an issue at a later stage. Thereafter, Mr Fischer referred D/Sgt Du Preez back to Exhibit WW which had been submitted during his examination-in-chief. Exhibit WW was a pamphlet headed “Umkonto We Sizwe” which referred to 70 acts of sabotage throughout the whole country. Mr Fischer confirmed with the witness that these acts were not just those committed in the Eastern Province but the whole Republic. Mr Fischer informed D/Sgt Du Preez that this was significant because up until February, 1963, the total of 152 acts of sabotage had been charged. The pamphlet thus must have been issued between February and May, 1963.
Mr Fischer then asked D/Sgt Du Preez about the sources of his knowledge, the so-called friendships he had cultivated with ANC and MK members, which resulted in much of his evidence regarding the cell structure of the ANC and MK in the Eastern Cape. D/Sgt Du Preez said that he could remember who had told him this evidence but he was not willing to betray the trust of those people who had told him. Mr Fischer pushes D/Sgt Du Preez to discuss the so-called “agents” – as they were described in the indictment – listed in paragraph 32, page 8, of Annexure A. D/Sgt Du Preez claims that all of these people, except Nos. 1, 5, 3, 24, and 29, were known to him as members of either the ANC or MK.
Mr Fischer argued that D/Sgt Du Preez’s knowledge of the political affiliations of several of the accused and co-conspirators was all second-hand information he had received from other people. The defence would argue that a great deal of the evidence submitted by D/Sgt Du Preez was thus hearsay and should be ignored by the judge in reaching his conclusions. Having dealt with the agents, Mr Fischer then turns attention to some of the Items, acts of sabotage, discussed by D/Sgt Du Preez during his examination-in-chief. Item Nos. 53, 56, and 93 are each discussed briefly by D/Sgt Du Preez.
Mr Fischer establishes that the burning and petrol bombing of private residences, which the defence would argue went against the policy of the ANC and MK, all took place in the relatively short period of two months in Port Elizabeth. In closing his cross-examination Mr Fischer confirmed that D/Sgt Du Preez’s evidence was that it was after this two month period of petrol bombing that a Technical Committee was established to manufacture bombs for MK in Port Elizabeth.
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Mr Berrange began by questioning D/Sgt Du Preez about his role in the investigation in the case against Harold Strachan, Govan Mbeki and two others. D/Sgt Du Preez said that he had both given and taken statements in relation to this case but was never called as a witness to give evidence. Mr Berrange asked D/Sgt Du Preez if he had taken the statements of the two young men from the Transkei for the Strachan case and if he was aware of the evidence they had given then. D/Sgt Du Preez said that he did not take their statements and did not know what evidence they gave. D/Sgt Du Preez had taken a statement from John Tshingane who had confessed, during his evidence in this Rivonia Trial, that he had been the one who drove these two young men from the Transkei to Joseph Jack’s house in Port Elizabeth.
Mr Berrange recalled that John Tshingane i had told the court that shortly after his detention he had been interrogated by a police officer and asked if this had been D/Sgt Du Preez. D/Sgt Du Preez said that when giving his statement, John Tshingane had told him the same thing and D/Sgt Du Preez had assumed it was the investigating officer in charge of the Strachan case, W/O Jordaan. In response to this Mr Berrange said, “Well, then perhaps all the questions I’m addressing to you I might address to Mr. Jordaan if His Lordship will allow me to recall him”.
Like Mr Fischer, Mr Berrange also had a significant degree of success in presenting a large amount of D/Sgt Du Preez’s evidence as hearsay. The short passage of dialogue between Mr Berrange and D/Sgt Du Preez quoted below is an apt indication of how this was done:
Mr Berrange: You heard it from him [John Tshingane] that he was questioned at the time [of his arrest], but didn’t admit anything?
D/Sgt Du Preez: Quite right.
Mr Berrange: Did you ask him why he hadn’t admitted on being questioned then?
D/Sgt Du Preez: None of my business.
Mr Berrange: Did you ask him why he was admitting to you now, perhaps that was something of your business!
D/Sgt Du Preez: Yes, I think I knew more than he thought I knew.
Mr Berrange: And you told him so?
D/Sgt Du Preez: I told him a few facts, yes.
Mr Berrange: You gave him a few facts of life and a few facts about the case?
D/Sgt Du Preez: I told him what he had done.
Mr Berrange: You told him what he had done, and having told him what he had done, he then agreed with you?
D/Sgt Du Preez: Not as easy as that.
Mr Berrange: What difficulty did you have?
D/Sgt Du Preez: I knew that he was transporting bombs. I did not know in whose company.
Mr Berrange: Yes?
D/Sgt Du Preez: That he had to give to me.
In the note of the defence team, the above passage is underlined in a bold red marker, clearly indicating that it was a significant moment of cross-examination for the defence’s case. Furthermore, a short while after this exchange D/Sgt Du Preez contradicts himself by saying, “I told him that I suspected him of having transported bombs for Accused No.4 in 1961”.
Mr Berrange also established that when D/Sgt Du Preez had taken a statement from Norman Dondashe he had also made a major suggestion to the witness in that instance. Specifically, D/Sgt Du Preez had been the one to say to Norman Dondashe that the police knew that he had attended a conference in Lobatse. Mr Berrange asked why it was that Peter Peyise (whom D/Sgt Du Preez had interviewed) and Norman Dondashe “were only able to remember these things, in which they corroborated one another and nothing else”. D/Sgt Du Preez could not answer the question.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Under re-examination Dr Yutar asks D/Sgt Du Preez, “Is it possible to obtain a statement from a witness, without telling him what you want him to testify about. Make a statement about?” D/Sgt Du Preez replied that he had never heard of that having happened yet. Dr Yutar then said, “I’m just asking you because my learned friend thinks it’s improper. Dr Yutar asked D/Sgt Du Preez some questions regarding the statements made by certain witnesses in the Strachan Trial but, as D/Sgt Du Preez could give no details, Dr Yutar said he would repeat the questions to Lieut. van Wyk.
No further cross-examination.
104th State Witness: Warrant Officer Johannes Jordaan – Security Branch, Port Elizabeth. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
W/O Jordaan was recalled by Mr Berrange in order to tell the court about his involvement in the investigation of the case against Strachan and others and specifically the two young men from the Transkei, Sisa Dukada and Win Mbandla, who appeared as witnesses for the state. The two gave evidence to the effect that they had come to Port Elizabeth to receive training of some sort and were driven to Joseph Jack’s house and a garage by a man with glasses. John Singani gave evidence in this court during the Rivonia Trial that he had been the man with glasses who drove them. W/O Jordaan said that John Sigani had been brought to the office by a Bantu Sergeant and refused to admit anything under interrogation. W/O Jordaan said that he did not know who this man was and did not make any notes of it.
No re-examination.
107th State Witness: Franciscus Varinga – Proprietor, Sleepy Hollow Garage, Rivonia.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
The Sleepy Hollow Garage was based very close to Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, Johannesburg. Franciscus Varinga got to know Arthur Goldreich, his wife and his employee Thomas, as regular customers at his garage. Franciscus Varinga had interacted with them for about three months prior to the arrest.
Exhibit T. 69 was handed in and identified by Franciscus Varinga as one of his job cards made out to Arthur Goldreich in connection with the Austin light delivery van he owned (Exhibit UU). The work was done on 19th June, 1963 and an amount of R60.00 was paid with the remaining amount owed still outstanding. Mr Krog asked Franciscus Varinga if he had ever tried to get the remaining amount owed to him. Franciscus Varinga made many people in the courtroom chuckle when he said, “I did on the Friday morning after he was arrested. Nearly got arrested myself!” On an earlier occasion Franciscus Varinga had seen the Austin van driving past his garage and he followed it in his own car in order to try and get the payment from Arthur Goldreich.
When Franciscus Varinga pulled up next to the van he saw that it was not Arthur Goldreich driving. The man driving told Franciscus Varinga that Mr Goldreich was at home and would see him in the course of the next few days. Franciscus Varinga did not know who it was at the time but claimed that it was the person depicted in the lower photograph on page three of Exhibit D and sitting fifth from the left in the dock. On the occasion when Franciscus Varinga stopped the van there was a lot of steel filling cabinets and long counter-like objects on the back of the van.
In regard to Thomas, Franciscus Varinga claimed that in addition to working on the farm vehicles he also saw Thomas when he came around the neighbourhood selling vegetables grown at Liliesleaf Farm. In concluding his examination-in-chief Dr Yutar asked Franciscus Varinga to study the photographs in Exhibit D. Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu, was said to have been a face he had seen at Liliesleaf Farm but Franciscus Varinga did not know his name. He also identified Accused No. 4, Govan Mbeki, but also not by name.
Cross-examination by Mr Fischer.
Franciscus Varinga stated that he did not know at the time who Denis Goldberg was but was able to do so now because he had been shown this photograph of Denis Goldberg before by the police.
Re-examination.
When Franciscus Varinga was shown photographs by the police is was one by one on the same occasion and he was asked if he could recognise any of the people depicted.
No further cross-examination.
Court is adjourned until 9:00am on Monday.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.51/5A/106c) (Vol.51/5A/107c) (Vol.51/5A/108c) (Vol.51/5A/109c) (Vol.51/5A/110c) (Vol.51/5B/111c) (Vol.51/5B/112c) (Vol.51/5B/113c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 7th February, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Peter Peyise (MS.385/4).
Evidence of Jonathan Du Preez (MS.385/5).
Wits Historical Papers:
H1 – H63: Evidence includes that by Florence Ntomela, statements from witnesses, reading of exhibits (AD1844.A8.2).
Evidence: A Njikelane (AD1844.A13.3).
Evidence: Du Preez (AD1844.A14.2).
Evaluation of Evidence: Sikumbuza Njikelane (AD1844.Ba12).
Evaluation of Evidence: Du Preez (AD1844.A18.12).
Key Words
Govan Mbeki, Joseph Jack, Benson Fihla, Port Elizabeth, Harold Strachan Trial, Sabotage, Explosives, Denis Goldberg, Liliesleaf Farm, Arthur Goldreich.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.