Description
As D/Sgt van Wyk could not be cross-examined in regard to the information contained in the pocket book of D/Sgt van Zyl, Mr Berrange requested that the state make this other witness available once again. Dr Yutar informed the court that he would do his best to recalled D/Sgt van Zyl but, as he had been excused that morning, he was already on his way to South West Africa and could prove hard to get hold of.
Thereafter Mr Berrange asked to have Charles Martin Watson recalled to clarify an issue he wanted on record. Once again Dr Yutar informed the court that this witness had been excused and was no longer available at the court. Mr Berrange explained that he wanted it placed on record, by the witness, that each wheel of a train and its coaches all have an inner flange, inside the wheel and inside the railway line itself, which is attached with a stiff axel. Therefore, Mr Berrange argued, if one portion of the rail is removed for a section the flanges on the other side of the train would keep that wheel in position to prevent a derailment. Judge De Wet said that he completely disagreed and explained, as if he were an expert, that it very well could have derailed. Mr Berrange apologized and said that he would content himself that it had taken place in a five mile-per-hour speed limit portion of the railway track.
Following this Dr Yutar informed Mr Berrange that he would be leading evidence tomorrow of “an even more serious derailment” which took place in Johannesburg in 1963 and that would present an opportunity for the defence to get this on record.
SIE Cruywagen’s evidence not be published by the press because “he is afraid that little boys may want to try it at home with disastrous consequences”. Judge De wet said that he felt the press had been very responsible in this regard so far in the trial and he assumed that they would not be publishing such information.
When Peter Nbomvu was recalled for cross-examination Dr Yutar informed the court that, although it had been ordered in this case that his name not be published by the press, in a subsequent case in Port Elizabeth Peter Nbomvu’s name had been published and he now feared for the life of his family. As such De Wet reiterated that this witnesses name should not be divulged to the public.
Witnesses Called
135th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Johannes Petrus Francious van Wyk – Security Branch, Cape Town. (Recalled).
Further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
D/Sgt van Wyk was recalled in order to identify and hand in the slip of paper with an X marking a signal box which he purportedly found in Looksmart Solwandla’s pocket. The police in Cape Town had sent the slip of paper (Exhibit BN) as well as the pocket notebook of D/Sgt van Zyl overnight so as to be presented to the court on this morning. After discussion of Exhibit BN, D/Sgt van Wyk is asked by Dr Yutar to read certain extracts from two pages of D/Sgt van Zyl’s pocket book. Dr Yutar informed the court that due to the confidential information within this notebook it would not be handed in to the court but the defence were allowed to examine the two pages from which extracts concerning the address of Looksmart Solwandla, among other things, had been read.
Cross-examination reserved.
135th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Johannes Petrus Francious van Wyk – Security Branch, Cape Town. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
In November, 1961, Louis Levitan was approached by Harold Strachan in response to an advert he had put in the local newspapers about a garage he wanted to hire out. According to Louis Levitan, Harold Strachan asked him if the garage in question had electric lights and Louis Levitan replied that they did not. Harold Strachan had said it was a pity because he wanted to build a trailer for a fishing boat and he would have to use a hurricane lamp or a gas lamp but he hired the garage nonetheless. The garage was located approximately 700 yards from Rink Street and Harold Strachan paid for the empty garage a month in advance.
On 16th December, 1961, Louis Levitan was visited by the Security Police in connection with the garage rented by Harold Strachan. Louis Levitan went to the garage with the Security Police he saw a wooden box with rope handles and white dust on the floor mixed with sand. Louis Levitan recalled that written on the box were the words “with care”. Louis Levitan gave evidence in Port Elizabeth in the case against Harold Strachan in which he was charged and found guilty.
No cross-examination
Following the conclusion of this witness’s examination-in-chief, a member of the defence team informed the court that he had just received an instruction from one of the Accused stating that he would like to interview his council in regard to the evidence of this witness. As such the defence requested the witness to stand down but remain available in court.
Cross-examination reserved.
138th State Witness: Charles Martin Watson – Train Driver, Durban.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
On the morning of 24th March, 1963, Charles Watson was driving a passenger train from Durban to Port Shepstone. Just outside the Berea Road Station Charles Watson purportedly heard an explosion, although he could not see it, and continued to drive the train at a cautious speed until he passed underneath the Victoria Road Bridge. At that point he felt the engine jerk to the left and he felt as if it was going to be derailed but somehow it stayed on the tracks and Charles Watson was able to continue at an even slower speed. Charles Watson realised that he had taken the train over a damaged portion of the tracks and stopped before he got to the next Station to bring it to the attention of the Signal man at Berea Station.
Charles Watson said that dynamite was placed on the side of the rail with a cement block attached to it which blew a significant portion of the track out. The fact that there was a slight curve to the left in this track meant that it prevented him from seeing the damage from the driver’s view of the track. Charles Watson claimed that had he not been so cautious the train would have derailed resulting in the death of himself and his colleagues and injury to the passengers in the coaches.
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Charles Watson told Mr Berrange that he had already given this evidence about a month previously in Pietermaritzburg. Mr Berrange said that it had been established in the evidence given at Pietermaritzburg that Charles Watson had been travelling in a five mile-per-hour speed limited section when he came across the damaged portion of the track. Mr Berrange went on to say that in that case an expert had given evidence that in order for the train to have been derailed it would have been necessary to break both of the railway lines and not just one. Charles Watson said that as far as he knew only one line needed to be damaged for a train to be derailed.
Charles Watson stated that he had never experienced being turned over in all of his 16 years of experience as a train driver but he had sustained serval derailments in his career resulting from many natural circumstances.
No re-examination
139th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Leonard Kawe – SAP, Port Elizabeth.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
D/Sgt Kawe was asked to translate a typed leaflet written in isiXhosa submitted to the court as Exhibit YYY by former state witness D/Sgt Du Preez. D/Sgt Kawe stated that he had translated the content of the leaflet correctly into English.
Cross-examination reserved.
140th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Marlhuis Maberger Rautenbach – SAP, Fingerprint Expert, Johannesburg.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
D/Sgt Rautenbach had lifted a fingerprint found on a jam tin in Room Four of Liliesleaf Farm which he photographed, examined and identified as being that of Harold Wolpe. The photograph was handed in as Exhibit BP and the prints of Wolpe used comparatively for identification were handed in as Exhibit QQ.
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Under cross-examination D/Sgt Rautenbach said that he had lifted other prints from Rivonia which could not be identified and that he had these on record. D/Sgt Rautenbach stated that he had examined many articles at Rivonia and had the records of all of these examinations. D/Sgt Rautenbach stated that he had inspected the car licenced ND 71903 as well as the cutlery and bottles in Room One and of all of these he could one identify the one fingerprint of Harold Wolpe’s.
D/Sgt Rautenbach stated that he had also examined the duplicating machine in Room Four with D/Sgt Odendaal, another fingerprint expert, who was inspecting this and other articles in the room. D/Sgt Rautenbach was unable to say exactly what had been examined by D/Sgt Odendaal.
No re-examination.
129th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Albertus Ferreira – Security Branch, Pretoria. (Recalled).
Further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
D/Sgt Ferreira was recalled by the state in order for Dr Yutar to put a few additional questions to him while he waited for his next witness to arrive at the court. Dr Yutar began with questioning D/Sgt Ferreira in regard to Item No.148 of Annexure B. D/Sgt Ferreira stated that on 27th January, 1963, four black men were arrested in Pretoria in connection with the attempted sabotage attack at the old Synagogue which was used for hearing court cases. D/Sgt Ferreira claimed that these for men belonged to both the ANC and MK.
Thereafter D/Sgt Ferreira discussed the attack on the Minister’s office in October, 1963. Three black men D/Sgt Ferreira claimed were all also members of the ANC and MK had been detained in connection with this attack.
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Mr Berrange began by correcting D/Sgt Ferreira and stating that the arrests had taken place in January, 1964, not 1963. The attempted attack on the Synagogue was in January, 1963, and the attack on the Minister’s office was in October, 1962. The police were still busy with the investigation of the Synagogue attack and thus the four men were still being detained under the 90 day detention stipulations with no charge having yet been brought against them. The three arrested for the second attack were also still being held under the same circumstances.
Mr Berrange asked D/Sgt Ferreira where he had got the information that these men were associated with the ANC and MK. D/Sgt Ferreira claimed that the men had told him this themselves. Mr Berrange suggested that this was admitted to whilst they were in detention but D/Sgt Ferreira said that two of the arrested persons had admitted this to him before they were detained and that one had even admitted that he was the leader of MK in Pretoria as soon as he was arrested.
D/Sgt Ferreira stated that as a result of information gathered from those arrested observations were made in Mamalodi and, on 27th January, a person was found in possession of a home-made bomb. He was arrested and immediately confessed that he was going to blow up a place. The arrested man had not made a confession in front of a Magistrate but the arrested man who claimed to have been the leader of MK in Pretoria had made an 81 page statement. D/Sgt Ferreira stated that only one of the four detained in connection with the attack on the Synagogue had made a statement. In fact only one written statement had been made for all seven arrested although D/Sgt Ferreira claimed four or five had made verbal statements.
Mr Berrange then questioned D/Sgt Ferreira in regard to the arrest of Looksmart Solwandla, Andrew Mlangeni and one other person. D/Sgt Ferreira admitted that as soon as the police had entered the room and found certain articles Looksmart Solwandla had told them that the articles were his and that the other two men had nothing to do with them. Mr Berrange then asked, “By the way, Mr Ferreira, when a person has been detained in terms of section 17, is it usual practice for you to give them what you call a police warning?” D/Sgt Ferreira said that it depended on the circumstances and that he would usually only give the warning if he spoke to the person about a specific charge being brought against them.
D/Sgt Ferreira claimed that when he spoke to Andrew Mlangeni he only asked if he could give an explanation for the documents and D/Sgt Ferreira told Andrew Mlangeni that he was not suspected of anything. Mr Berrange asked why, then, D/Sgt Ferreira had said in his examination-in-chief that he had “warned him in the usual manner”. D/Sgt Ferreira denied that and said, if he had said that, it must have been a mistake due to the way Dr Yutar had put the question to him. D/Sgt Ferreira claimed that he did not remember using the word “gewone” in his examination-in-chief. D/Sgt Ferreira then told the court that the confusion was because the request he made to Andrew Mlangeni was interpreted to him as a kind of warning. Mr Berrange clearly thought that the idea that D/Sgt Ferreira could confuse a request with a warning ridiculous and concluded his cross-examination on that point.
No re-examination.
135th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Johannes Petrus Francious van Wyk – Security Branch, Cape Town. (Recalled).
Further cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
At the outset Mr Berrange informs the court that he required this witness for no other reason than to submit evidence in regard to what the pocked book of D/Sgt Van Zyl, handed in earlier on this day, showed on page 78. On this page an address was given for Carbrook Avenue, Claremont, and printed on top were the letters D.I.M.M.I.S.
No re-examination.
141st State Witness: Senior Inspector of Explosives Paul Hougard Cruywagen – Explosives Expert.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
SIE Cruywagen had been in the service of the SAP as an explosives expert in Johannesburg for 10 years and had testified in a number of cases. On 27th June, 1963, SIE Cruywagen was taken by Col. Klindt and other officers to the same open piece of ground in Meadowlands which was discussed in the evidence of D/Sgt Kotze and W/O Posthumous. There SIE Cruywagen was shown 7 tins containing various explosives such as dynamite cartridges, capped fuses, and blasting cartridges, in addition to three South African Railway job signals. SIE Cruywagen stated that these were all authorised explosives in terms of Government Notice R2132 of 28th December, 1962. All had been destroyed except for the Railway job signs.
Dr Yutar then handed in and dealt with an affidavit – in terms of section 239, subsection 4, of Act 56 of 1955 – made by Senior Inspector F. A. van Heerden (Exhibit BQ). The affidavit was to the effect that on 30th July, 1963, he received a box from Dirker containing bottles of Nitric Acid, Ammonium Nitrate, Benzene, Ammonium Nitrate Crystals, as well as a packet of Aluminium and Brass powder. Dr Yutar informed the court that the box and all its contents had been found in Room Three at Liliesleaf Farm, Rivonia, and this would be testified to by D/Sgt Dirker.
Dr Yutar then deals with each of these and other items listed as Exhibits found at Rivonia. Below is a list of those exhibits discussed by SIE Cruywagen as taken from the notes of the defence team:
Exhibit R.189: Bottle marked Nitric Acid. (3 R.134). Found in Room Three.
Exhibit R.190: Bottle solution Ammonium Nitrate. (3 R.134). Found in Room Three.
Exhibit R.191: Two bottles containing Benzine. (3 R.134). Found in Room Three.
Exhibit R.192: Envelopes containing Ammonium Nitrate Crystals. (3 R.135). Found in Room Three.
Exhibit R.193: Mixture of Aluminium and Brass Powder. (3 R.136). Found in Room Three.
Exhibit R.159: Price List – Various Chemicals. (SR.24). Found in the Studio.
Exhibit R.194: Three Aluminium Pipe Sections. Found in the Kitchen.
Exhibit R.195: Aluminium Pipes. Found in Arthur Goldreich’s car.
Exhibit R.196: Plastic bag containing metal Cover Time Fuse. (3 R.80). Found in Room Three.
Exhibit R.3: Book in handwriting of Arthur Goldreich – Theory of Demolition. (S.R.2). Found in the Studio.
Exhibit R.2: Document S.R.23 – Blue Envelope – Arthur Goldreich’s writing. Found in the Studio.
In addition to these, SIE Cruywagen also gave evidence in regard to the following exhibits found at Travallyn:
Exhibit T.11: Production Requirements. Found in Denis Goldberg’s car.
Exhibit T.5: Sketch of Receiver of Sand. (T.108).
Exhibit T.38: Preparation of Nitric Acid. (T.124).
As well as the following exhibits from the Numerical list:
Exhibit No.6: Sample of a Landmine (Wooden Box). Found by D/Sgt Dirker in Room Three, Rivonia.
Exhibit No.24: Hand grenade made by SIE Cruywagen according to specifications given in Exhibit T.2.
Exhibit No.12: Sample of casting made by Phoenix Foundry. SIE Cruywagen claimed that if modified this could have been used for Hand Grenades.
Exhibit No.13: Sample of casting made by James Barwell. SIE Cruywagen claimed that if modified this could have been used for Hand Grenades.
Exhibit No.25: Constitutive parts of Hand Grenade. All tested by SIE Cruywagen and said to have worked.
And, lastly, SIE Cruywagen gave evidence on the following alphabetically listed exhibits:
Exhibit BR: Plan of Syringe Bomb. Corresponds with Exhibit No.4.
Exhibit BS: Plan of Pipe Bomb. Corresponds with Exhibit No.3.
Exhibit BT: Plan of Petrol Bomb. Corresponds with Exhibit No.2.
SIE Cruywagen gave a substantial amount of detail in regard to the above mentioned exhibits which is not reflected in the brief notes taken from the defence team’s notes and presented here.
Further examination-in-chief reserved.
135th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Johannes Petrus Francious van Wyk – SAP, Cape Town. (Recalled).
Further Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
D/Sgt van Wyk was recalled yet again in order for Mr Berrange to clarify some matters in regard to Exhibit BN, which was the slip of paper with a sketch of certain roads and a star marking the location of a Railway signal box, found in the possession of Looksmart Solwandla and purportedly given to him by Denis Goldberg. Mr Berrange claimed that the handwriting on the document was not that of Denis Goldberg but D/Sgt van Wyk could not comment on that point. Thereafter Mr Berrange spent time challenging D/Sgt van Wyk’s interpretation of exactly which roads were sketched on the document and their proximity to the Railway tracks.
Mr Berrange argues that the asterisk, or star, was shown in the middle of one of the streets depicted on the sketch where it was impossible for there to have been a signal box. Furthermore, there were houses on either side of this street and on either side of the portion where the asterisk was placed. Mr Berrange said that it was D/Sgt van Wyk’s assumption that the asterisk had indicated a signal box.
No re-examination.
102nd State Witness: Peter Mark Nbomvu [Mvombu, Nobomvu] – Convicted Saboteur. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Mr Berrange began his examination-in-chief of Peter Nbomvu by reading back to the witness certain evidence he had given during his examination-in-chief. Mr Berrange summarised that Peter Nbomvu had been told to meet at a certain house where he was told by Richard Tokwe that “we are going to work tonight”. Richard Tokwe then went next door and returned with bottles containing petrol, which Peter Nbomvu described during his examination-in-chief, and was the told that if he heard a report then he should run away and know that the work had been done. Peter Nbomvu told the court that he and the others involved did hear the report and did run away.
When asked whom exactly had been involved in this venture Peter Nbomvu had replied, “It was myself, Andy Zindevu, Richard Tokwe, Williams Frans, Richard Noncgobu and Sipho Mange”. Thereafter, Mr Berrange asked Peter Nbomvu to describe exactly what he and the others had done in order to set this house on fire. Peter Nbomvu said that Andy Zindavu and Richard Tokwe each had a bottle and they went to the house with Peter Nbomvu. The three others, William Frans, Richard Noncgobu and Sipho Mange were standing guard outside the house. When the house caught fire all six men ran way and it was the same men, including himself, who were involved in the second venture.
Mr Berrange then asked Peter Nbomvu to recall the evidence he gave in which he told the court that he had lied when giving evidence in his own trial about how he had come to make a confession to the Magistrate in Port Elizabeth. At first Peter Nbomvu denied this, but after Mr Berrange pursued the issue, Peter Nbomvu eventually admitted that he had told the court that the police had forced him to go to the Magistrate and make a confession by threatening to take his bail away. Mr Berrange asked if this evidence had been true of false. Peter Nbomvu responded, “My legal representative told me to say so in Court”.
“That is not an answer to my question – I know you are very anxious to say that. Was it true or was it false?” continued Mr Berrange.
“It was not the truth, but it was my attorney that said I must say that.” Reiterated Peter Nbomvu.
Mr Berrange said that he would deal with this question of Peter Nbomvu’s attorney’s instructions to him at a later stage as for now he wanted to deal with the history of the whole of Peter Nbomvu’s case.
Detained first 5th October, 1962, then released.
Was questioned but said nothing “about [his] little venture that evening when [he] went and helped to set fire to a place”.
Then, one day after having been arrested on 10th October, Peter Nbomvu made an affidavit to the police. Two days later, on 13th October, 1962, Peter Nbomvu made a further affidavit to the police which he claimed he did not remember making. Mr Berrange put it to Peter Nbomvu, “You made a statement on the 11th and one on the 13th, two days later, signed by you, sworn to by you, attested by a Commissioner of Oaths and the witness was Mr. Card, detective sergeant. Do you deny it?” After that, Peter Nbomvu was no longer vague and admitted plainly that he had made these statements.
Peter Nbomvu was kept in custody until 2th December, 1962, when he was bailed out, and then on 13th December, 1962, he was taken to a Magistrate and made a confession there which he repudiated later on. The indictment for Peter Nbomvu’s case was served on 20th December and on 27th December, 1962, he made the statement which he claimed his attorney had forced him to make. Mr Berrange continued to explain that Peter Nbomvu’s case was called on 14th January, 1963, and legal argument was addressed on the indictment, and the indictment was quashed. This was followed by a number of remands, and the case was eventually called again on 28th January, 1963, at which stage the question of the admissibility of this confession made to the Magistrate was argued. Mr Berrange clarified that it was at this point that Peter Nbomvu claimed to have given evidence to the court which was not true because of his attorney’s instructions to do so. Judgement in regard to this confession was due to be given by the court on 31st January, 1963, but Peter Nbomvu ran away and disappeared. The case was called on a number of occasions and, having eventually been caught by the police, Peter Nbomvu was finally tried on 20th February, 1963, together with Richard Tokwe and Andy Zindevu. The other two were acquitted while Peter Nbomvu was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.
Having concluded his summation of Peter Nbomvu’s trial, Mr Berrange gets the witness to state for the record that, aside from the evidence concerning the confession made to a Magistrate, Peter Nbomvu maintained that all the rest of the evidence he had given in court was the truth. Having got this admission that he wanted, Mr Berrange began to expose a number of contradictions in the various statements given by Peter Nbomvu regarding the two instances of sabotage he claimed to have been part of. The first such contradiction was in regard to the number of bottles, and their contents, used to set the house of a Bantu Sergeant.
During his examination-in-chief in the Rivonia Trial, Peter Nbomvu had told Judge De Wet that Richard Tokwe had gone next door and returned with two bottles containing petrol which he had described as having “some rags inside, and it was closed with paper – the mouth of the bottle was closed with paper”. Peter Nbomvu argeed that this was correct. Mr Berrange then referred to the first statement made by Peter Nbomvu to D/Sgt Card shortly after his arrest. In this first statement Peter Nbomvu had only spoken of one bottle which Richard Tokwe handed to Andy Zindevu which he described as “a wine bottle which had paraffin in it”. Peter Nbomvu denied that he had said paraffin and not petrol in this statement and that he had spoken of one bottle and not two.
Mr Berrange went on to consider the matter in relation to the second statement made by Peter Nbomvu on the 13th of October, 1962. In this statement Peter Nbomvu had claimed that when Richard Tokwe returned with a bottle, “It was dark and [Peter Nbomvu] cannot describe the bottle”. Peter Nbomvu protested that this was not the case and Mr Berrange asked him several times if he was admitting or denying that he had said this to D/Sgt Card. Eventually Peter Nbomvu responded, “I cannot admit something that I don’t know.” Mr Berrange then referred to the confession made to a Magistrate by Peter Nbomvu in which Peter Nbomvu had specifically clarified that Richard Tokwe had returned with “not two bottles, one”.
Peter Nbomvu insisted that he had always said two bottles despite the fact that in his statements and his confession he only ever spoke of one bottle which, in his second statement, he claimed he could not describe. Mr Berrange drew the conclusion that Peter Nbomvu was now arguing that “everything that is written down in the statements and confession on this aspect is untrue”. In the notes of the defence team headed “Evaluation of evidence: Peter Nbomvu” a comment is made to the effect that:
The change from one bottle to two bottles seems designed to fit in with the evidence of Du Preez who referred to petrol bombs having been thrown into the house. There is a similar change in regard to the description of the bottle, the mode of attack, - in relation to the first act of sabotage, and as to whether he participated in the second act of sabotage… He is unable to explain the passage in the 2nd statement in which he said it was too dark for him to describe the bottle.
As suggested in the above extract, Mr Berrange also exposed contradictions in regard to Peter Nbomvu’s evidence on the mode of the first act of sabotage. In his first statement Peter Nbomvu had said that Andy Zindevu threw a bottle of paraffin at a window of the house, breaking both the window and the bottle, after which he set the paraffin alight. In his second statement he did not mention paraffin and said that he had heard a loud bang, run away and been too far away to see what happened. In his confession he does not describe the attack other than the fact that he had heard an explosion and run away. In the Rivonia Trial, Peter Nbomvu’s evidence was to the effect that he heard an explosion and ran away but, with the new addition that the bottles had in fact contained petrol.
Mr Berrange then turned his attention to the second act of sabotage testified to by Peter Nbomvu involving the attack on the house of Kaizer Matanzima’s representative, Jackson Ndabanavi. Mr Berrange showed that no mention of such an act of sabotage had been made any of Peter Nbomvu’s statements to D/Sgt Card or his confession to a Magistrate. This was in complete contradiction to Peter Nbomvu’s claim that he had made a confession “because [he] wanted to clear [his] chest, to tell the truth”. The defence team’s notes stated that “having regard to the peculiar circumstances in which the confession was made, it is inconceivable that he would have held back this fact if his story was a true one”.
Apart from Peter Nbomvu’s insistences to the contrary in court, the fact was that he indicated in both of his first statements that he had not participated in the second act of sabotage and was only told about it at Sipho Mange’s house. Once again Peter Nbomvu was unable to explain the contradictions exposed by Mr Berrange in regard to the second act in his cross-examination. As Mr Berrange made consistent reference to the various statements, confessions, and evidence given in court, by Peter Nbomvu, the cross-examination of this witness was significantly more complex that most other state witnesses in the Rivonia Trial.
For the sake of clarity, provided below is a succinct list of a number of additional “unsatisfactory features” of Peter Nbomvu’s evidence found in the notes of the defence team:
i. The place where they met before going to commit sabotage.
ii. The name of the owner of the house where the 2nd act of sabotage was committed.
iii. His attempt to involve his attorney.
iv. His reason for confessing at a late stage to the 2nd act of sabotage.
v. His denial of having consulted with any representative of the State before giving evidence.
vi. The fact that his evidence at his own trial differs from his evidence at the Rivonia trial as to how this confession came to be made, and he must have committed perjury in at least one of the trials. And he also lied the police and his council.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar opened his re-examination by stating that “the rather blunt suggestion” being made to Peter Nbomvu by the defence was that either the police, Dr Yutar’s colleague Mr. Clusman – who had interviewed Peter Nbomvu prior to his giving evidence in this case –, or Dr Yutar himself, had told Peter Nbomvu what to say to Judge De Wet in the Rivonia Trial. Peter Nbomvu stated that no-one had told him what to say in court. Dr Yutar the asked, “Did I ever speak to you before you went into the witness box?” But before Peter Nbomvu could reply, Mr Berrange interjected, “My learned friend does not have to be so sensitive my lord. I made no suggestion against my learned friend and I can tell him I am not making it now.”
Peter Nbomvu said that he seen Dr Yutar for the first time when he was called for his examination-in-chief and that he had never told Dr Yutar the name Molinsky prior to his questioning either. Dr Yutar then asked Peter Nbomvu if he had made any payment to his advocate and attorney, Molinsky and Jankelowitz, for their services in his own case. As Peter Nbomvu had not paid any fees, Dr Yutar asked if he was aware of the fact that payment was made for him from the account of Dr A. Letele via the offices of James Kantor and Partners. Peter Nbomvu was not aware of this and could give no explanation for why somebody else should pay to engage and attorney and an advocate on his behalf when he had committed an offence.
In closing Dr Yutar asked if there was any reason why, when already serving a 15 year sentence on Robben Island for the first act of sabotage, did Peter Nbomvu admit to another act of sabotage which could possibly result in the same penalty? Peter Nbomvu replied, “The only thing was that when this detective came to me and told me about the fact that they knew all about it, then I admitted it. I know I could not do anything else”.
Further cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Mr Berrange informed the court that some matters had just been raised by Dr Yutar which did not raise out of cross-examination at all. Mr Berrange stated the following to the court:
May I make this observation my lord that in regard to the allegation made by Dr Yutar to the effect that this man’s fees were paid out of the account of Letele viz James Kantor and Partners, I don’t know what warrant he has for making this observation. I hope if he wants your lordship to accept that that he establishes it…
Judge De Wet agreed entirely with Mr Berrange whilst Dr Yutar remained uncharacteristically silent. Mr Berrange asked a final question which lead to Peter Nbomvu admitting that the tea parties he spoke of where for the purpose of raising money for legal fees to be paid for persons who were arrested. In conclusion Mr Berrange raised the question of the affidavits this witness had made. The defence was not in possession of the originals but copies which had been made by the authorities and provided to the attorneys in Port Elizabeth on their request. This was followed by a discussion between Judge De Wet and the counsel as to how these statements, on being checked, could be submitted by consent. Dr Yutar interjected that he would like the defence to call the person who took these statements as a witness when putting these documents in. Mr Berrange laughed and asked, “Your witness, Mr Card?”, and Judge De Wet said that he had already seen that witness. Dr Yutar said he would like to know the circumstances in which the statements had been made and Mr Berrange, with a tone of mild bemusement, agreed to have him called.
Court was then adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.51/9B/158c) (Vol.51/9B/159c) (Vol.51/10A/160c) (Vol.51/10A/161c) (Vol.51/10A/162c) (Vol.51/10A/163c) (Vol.51/10A/164c) (Vol.51/10B/165c) (Vol.51/10B/166c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 18th February, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Johannes Petrus Van Wyk (MS.385/5).
Evidence of Peter Mark Nbomvu (MS.385/5).
Draft Notes on Peter Nobomvu’s falsification of evidence (MS.385/30/1/4).
Wits Historical Papers:
K1 – K51 Notes of State Witnesses evidence (AD1844.A9.2).
L1 – L36 Notes of State Witnesses evidence (AD1844.A9.3).
Evidence of P. Nobomvu (AD1844.A14.1).
Evaluation of Evidence: P Nobomvu (AD1844.Ba14.1).
Rivonia Exhibits (AD1844.A5.6).
Numerical Exhibits (AD1844.A5.3).
Travallyn Exhibits (AD1844.A5.7).
Alphabetical Exhibits (AD1844.A5.2).
Annexure B to the Indictment (AD1844.A2.3.3).
Key Words
Police Witnesses, Cape Town, Denis Goldberg, Looksmart Solwandla, Port Elizabeth, Harold Strachan, Harold Wolpe, Rivonia Raid, Liliesleaf Farm, Sabotage, Old Synagogue, Pretoria, ANC, MK, Robbin Island, Perjury.