Description
On this day proceedings began with Mr Fischer’s delivery of the defence’s opening address, after which Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, gave a statement from the dock marking the commencement of the defence’s case. This four-hour long speech by Nelson Mandela is by far the most publicized aspect of the Rivonia Trial and has been written about by many historians as a defining moment in the struggle against apartheid. Before turning to a discussion of the statement made by Nelson Mandela, however, it is important to give considerable attention to the opening address delivered by Mr Fischer.
The opening address for the defence delivered by Mr Fischer was both short and concise. Mr Fischer began by mentioning some of the important points of the state’s evidence which would be admitted to by some of the accused and those points which would be denied. Mr Fischer stated that the defence believed that it was important to mention these points before it led its evidence. The opening address by Mr Fischer is so important for understanding the nature of the defence’s case that it is quoted almost fully below:
Amongst the matters which will be placed in issue are the following, My Lord:
First, that the accused numbers one to seven were all members of the National High Command of Umkhonto we Sizwe. The defence evidence, My Lord, will show that accused numbers three, five, six and seven of the High Command were not members of the High Command of Umkhonto or members of Umkhonto at all. The defence evidence will also explain what the relationship was between accused numbers one, two and four and Umkhonto and the High Command of Umkhonto.
Secondly, My Lord, the issue will be the allegation by the Crown that Umkhonto was a section of the ANC. To use the phrase so frequently used by the State, “the military wing of the African National Congress”. My Lord, here the defence will seek to show that the leaders both of Umkhonto and of the African National Congress for sound, valid reasons which will be explained to Your Lordship endeavoured to keep these two organisations entirely distinct. They did not always succeed in this for reasons which will also be explained My Lord. And that we will suggest that the object of keeping the two organisations separate was always kept in mind and every effort was made to achieve that object.
Then thirdly, My Lord, that the ANC was a tool of the Communist Party and that the aims and objects of the ANC were the aims and objects of the Communist Party. Your Lordship will remember that great point was made of this in the State’s opening. The defence evidence will deny this emphatically, My Lord. It will show that the African National Congress is a broad national movement embracing all classes of Africans within its ranks, and having the aim of achieving equal political rights for all South Africans. The evidence will show further that it welcomes not only the support which it received from the Communist Party but also the support which it receives from other quarters. Now on this point, My Lord, the evidence will show how Umkhonto we Sizwe was formed, and that it was formed in order to undertake sabotage only for the achievement of political rights. And finally on this point, My Lord, the evidence will deny the allegation made in the State’s case that Umkhonto – the African National Congress relied in order to obtain support upon what was referred to as being the “alleged hardships” suffered by people.
My Lord all this will be relevant, particularly to the fourth point, and that is this: the fourth issue that Umkhonto had adopted a military plan called Operation Mayibuye and intended to embark upon guerrilla warfare during 1963, or had decided to embark upon guerrilla warfare.
Judge De Wet: What do you say, will that be denied?
Mr Fisher: That will be denied. Here the evidence will show while preparations for guerrilla warfare were being made from as early as 1962, no plan was ever adopted, and the evidence will show why it was hoped throughout that such a step could be avoided. My Lord in particular to the last issue the Court will be asked to have regard to the motives, the character and political background of the men in charge of Umkhonto we Sizwe and its operations. In other words to have regard amongst other things to the tradition of non-violence of the African National Congress, to have regard to the reasons which led these men to resort to sabotage in an effort to achieve their political objectives and why in the light of these facts they are to be believed when they say why Operation Mayibuye had not been adopted and that they would have not adopted it while there was still some chance however remote of achieving their objectives by the combination of mass political struggle and sabotage.
My Lord, the defence case will commence with a statement from the dock by accused number one who personally took part in the establishment of Umkhonto and who will be able to inform the Court of the beginnings of that organisation – and of its history up to August when he was arrested.
After Judge De Wet became involved in a discussion with the court clerks regarding the need to get a microphone to the dock, Nelson Mandela, stood and addressed the court as the first accused. However, before Nelson Mandela could progress past his first sentence, Dr Yutar interrupted him and addressed Judge De Wet. Dr Yutar asked Judge De Wet if he deemed it advisable, despite the fact that Nelson Mandela was represented by counsel, to remind Accused No.1 that a statement from the dock did not carry the same weight as evidence given under oath in the witness box which could be subjected to cross-examination by the state. Judge De Wet had already taken it for granted that Nelson Mandela was aware of this and Mr Fischer confirmed that it had been explained “very well” to the accused. Thereafter, Nelson Mandela began his statement once again.
Nelson Mandela’s Statement
Nelson Mandela began his statement by informing the court that he held a Bachelor of Arts degree and had practiced as an attorney in Johannesburg for a number of years in partnership with Oliver Tambo, a co-conspirator in this case. Currently, he was a convicted prisoner serving a five year sentence for leaving the country without an exit permit and for inciting a mass strike during May, 1961. He then added that he would immediately admit that he had been involved in the formation of MK and was a prominent member of the organisation until he was arrested in August, 1962. Following this admission he added that the purpose of his statement would be to “correct certain false impressions which have been created by State witnesses”.
Nelson Mandela explained that this would include, amongst other things, a demonstration of the fact that certain acts of sabotage referred to in evidence “were not and could not have been committed by Umkhonto”. He continued to explain that he would also deal with the relationship between MK, the ANC, and “the part played by the Communist Party”. Although, he did not explicitly state it here at the outset, it would become obvious later that the point Nelson Mandela was making in his discussion of the relationships between these organisations was precisely the third point made by Mr Fischer in his opening address for the defence.
As a point of departure Nelson Mandela completely denied the state’s suggestion that the struggle in South Africa was under the influence of foreigners or communists and stated firmly that “I have done whatever I did, both as an individual and as a leader of my people, because of my experience in South Africa and my own proudly felt African background, and not because of what any outsider might have said”. Following a discussion of the historical leaders, such as Dingane and Bambatha, who had motivated his decision to serve his people and contribute to the freedom struggle Nelson Mandela moved onto the question of sabotage.
Nelson Mandela said that he would not deny that he had personally planned acts of sabotage but he insisted that he “planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the whites” and not “in a spirit of recklessness”. In light of this, he denied that Mk was responsible for a number of acts which had been charged in the indictment “which clearly fell outside the policy of the organisation”. In order to prove that these particular acts were not authorised by MK, Nelson Mandela would refer to the political history and policy of the organisation of which he was a leading member.
Nelson Mandela claimed that there were two reasons for the formation of MK by himself and others. The first reason was to provide “responsible leadership” to African people by whom the use of violence “had become inevitable” as a result of government policy. It was argued that “unless responsible leadership was given to canalise and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of the country which is not produced even by war”. The second reason for the formation of MK and the use of sabotage was because “All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the Government. We chose to defy the Government”. Nelson Mandela suggested that it was the non-violent and pro-negotiation tradition of the ANC which had influence the founding members of MK to adopt a tactical forms of violence which were not terrorism and would not lead to an inter-racial war which they wished to avoid “to the last minute”.
Before describing the tactics of violence adopted by MK, Nelson Mandela first made several comments on the ANC organisation and its history. Nelson Mandela argued that from its inception until 1949 the ANC had adhered strictly to constitutional forms of struggle. This was changed with the Defiance Campaign which was based on the principles of passive resistance. Nelson Mandela said that this was the time when the volunteer component of the ANC was established and the word “amadelakufa” was used for the first time in the context of a pledge taken by volunteers. Nelson Mandela noted that much evidence concerning these volunteers had been taken out of context when brought up in evidence during this case and he clarified that:
The volunteers were not, and are not, the soldiers of a Black army pledged to fight a civil war against whites. They were, and are, dedicated workers who are prepared to lead campaigns initiated by the ANC to distribute leaflets, to organise strikes, or to do whatever the particular campaign required. They are called volunteers because they volunteer to face the penalties of imprisonment and whipping which are now prescribed by the legislature for such acts.
Nelson Mandela went on to discuss the Treason Trial and the judgement which had acquitted himself and his co-accused on all charges including the count “that the ANC sought to set up a Communist State in place of the existing regime”. He stated clearly that the ANC was not and never had been a communist organisation. Thereafter he discussed the massacre at Sharpeville and the resultant State of Emergence which forced the ANC underground and commented that, “I have no doubt that no self-respecting white political organisation would disband itself if declared illegal by a government in which it had no say”.
Thereafter, Nelson Mandela sought to rectify the misrepresentation of the M-Plan the court had been given by certain state witnesses. According to Nelson Mandela the M-Plan “was nothing more than a method of organising planned in 1953, and put into operation with varying degrees of success thereafter”. The M-Plan had nothing to do with sabotage or MK and he suggestion that this confusion had been caused by certain state witnesses from the Eastern Cape who spoke of the “High Commands” of the ANC which were in existence prior to the formation of MK which had a completely different organ known as the High Command. Nelson Mandela claimed, “This explains, My Lord, why persons like Bennett Mashiyane and Reginald Ndube heard nothing about sabotage at the meetings they attended”.
In discussing the “immediate causes” leading to the formation of MK Nelson Mandela mentioned the Government Referendum of 1960 and the government’s use of violent and repressive means in response to peaceful tactics of passive resistance by African people protesting the illegal Republic. In regard to his discussion of the socio-political landscape of South Africa and the actions and polices of organisations in the Liberation Movement during the first years of the 1960s, Nelson Mandela stated:
Some of this may appear irrelevant to this trial. In fact, I believe none of it is irrelevant because it will, I hope, enable the Court to appreciate the attitude towards Umkhonto eventually adopted by the various persons and bodies concerned in the National Liberation Movement. When I went to gaol in 1962, the dominant idea was that loss of life should be avoided. I now know that this was still so in 1963.
Nelson Mandela said that it was at the beginning of June, 1961, that he and some of his colleagues came to the conclusion that “it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the Government met our peaceful demands with force”. He stressed that this conclusion to form MK in order to embark upon violent modes of struggle, had not been reach easily. However, having made this decision he and his colleagues held consultations with leaders of various organisations involved in the liberation struggle, including the ANC.
Nelson Mandela was clear that he would not give evidence in regard to any of the people he had consulted with in this regard but would deal with the relationship between the ANC and MK. In brief, Nelson Mandela argued that the only change to the fifty-year long commitment to non-violence of the ANC was that “it would no longer disapprove of properly controlled acts of sabotage”. Nelson Mandela then clarified,
I say 'properly controlled sabotage' because I made it clear that if I helped to form the organisation I would at all times subject it to the political guidance of the ANC and would not undertake any different form of activity from that contemplated without the consent of the ANC. And I shall now tell the Court how that form of violence came to be determined.
Nelson Mandela explained how the fear of an imminent bloody inter-racial civil war had driven the decision for the MK to adopt sabotage its means of tactical violence as it was believed that it “did not involve the loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations”. Targets were chosen as a result of careful considerations of the economic situation in South Africa as well as an understanding that attacks on government buildings and other symbols of apartheid was a source of inspiration which galvanised participation in non-violent mass action campaigns. He explained that it was also hoped that the mass action stimulated by the sabotage acts of MK would attract the sympathies of other countries which would in turn put greater pressure on the apartheid government. Nelson Mandela then went on to discuss the organisational structure and policy framework of MK in terms of Regional Commands and the High Command at the summit of the organisation. According to Nelson Mandela these terms had been appropriated “from the Jewish underground organization, the Irgun Zvai Leumi, which operated in Israel between 1944 and 1948”.
Following a brief adjournment, Nelson Mandela referred Judge De Wet to a number of newspaper cuttings which he argued illustrated the point that “before December 1961 it was common knowledge in the townships and throughout the country that there existed a number of bodies other than Umkhonto which planned and carried out acts of sabotage, and that some of the acts which took place during the period of the indictment were in fact claimed by some of these organisations”. The National Committee of Liberation, Poqo, and the Yu Chi Chan Guerrilla Warfare Club were specifically mentioned as such organisations which had claimed responsibility for a number of sabotage acts committed during the period covered by the indictment.
After a discussion of the violent response of the white population to the manifesto of MK Nelson Mandela began to deal with the issue of guerrilla warfare. Nelson Mandela only conceded that the decision had been taken for the Liberation Movement “to make provision for the possibility of guerrilla warfare” in the future by building up a nucleus of persons trained in guerrilla warfare, civil administrations, and other occupations, “so that Africans would be equipped to participate in the government of this country as soon as they were allowed to do so”.
It was at this stage that the ANC decided to send Nelson Mandela to the Conference of the Pan-African Freedom Movement for Central, East, and Southern Africa, which held at Addis Ababa in 1962. It was also decided that after attending the conference as an ANC delegate Nelson Mandela was to tour other African states “with a view to soliciting support for our cause and obtaining scholarships for the higher education of matriculated Africans”. At the same time Nelson Mandela had been assigned a separate task by MK to “investigate whether facilities were available for the training of soldiers which was the first stage in the preparation for guerrilla warfare”. Nelson Mandela described his tour of Africa as “successful beyond all our hopes” and listed all of the African leaders who had promised their support in the fight against white supremacy in South Africa.
Nelson Mandela admitted that the notes submitted by the state which were in his handwriting had been made by him whilst on his tour of Africa. He claimed that the content of these notes was merely his own summaries of books he had read, courses he attended, and his own personal observations. He also admitted to have been involved in making arrangements for recruits to undergo military training in Tanganyika (Now Tanzania), the first batch of whom arrived as he was passing through the country back to South Africa. Back in South Africa Nelson Mandela found that the political situation and the view of the ANC had not changed much except for the fact that some ANC members expressed the view that the training of recruits was premature. Nelson Mandela claimed that he had recorded this in his rough notes which had been submitted as Exhibit R.14.
Nelson Mandela then turned his attention to the evidence given by Mr X (Bruno Mtolo). Nelson Mandela repeated a number of objects which had already been raised on his behalf by Mr Berrange during the cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo. In discussing the meeting he had had with the Regional Command in Durban, he conceded much of what had been told to the court by Bruno Mtolo, however, in addition to those of Nelson Mandela’s denials which had already been made, he stated “I never discussed Eric Mtshali at the meeting for the simple reason that I did not know him until I heard his name mentioned by “X” in this case”.
Thereafter, Nelson Mandela turned his attention to certain allegations which had been made by the state. The first of these allegations in the indictment discussed by Nelson Mandela was “that the ANC was a party to a general conspiracy to commit sabotage”. Nelson Mandela argued that although the lines between the membership of the ANC and Umkhonto were at times blurred due to many factors, these distinguishing lines separating the two organisations were never abolished. Nelson Mandela explained that:
The ANC remained a mass political body of Africans only carrying on the type of political work they have conducted prior to 1961. Umkhonto remained a small organisation recruiting its members from different races and organisations, and trying to achieve its own particular objectives. The fact that members of Umkhonto recruited from the ANC, and the fact that persons served both organisations, like Solomon Mbanjwa, did not in our view change the nature of the ANC or give it a policy of violence. This overlapping of officers, however, was more the exception than the rule.
The next allegation was that Rivonia was the headquarters of MK. Nelson Mandela claimed that at the time when he had been at Rivonia it was not the headquarters of MK. He added, “I was told, of course, and knew that certain of the activities of the Communist Party were carried on there. But this was no reason, as I shall presently explain, why I should not use the place”. Nelson Mandela told the court that he had been friends with Arthur Goldreich and his family since 1958 and when Nelson Mandela was forced underground Arthur Goldreich offered him a hiding place at his newly acquired property in Rivonia. Nelson Mandela stayed disguised as David at Liliesleaf Farm until he went abroad on 11th January, 1962. Nelson Mandela returned to the country in July, 1962, and was arrested in Natal on 5th August, 1962.
Nelson Mandela claimed that all meetings he had attended with either the National Executive of the ANC or the National High Command of MK whilst he was staying at Liliesleaf Farm had taken place at locations other than the farm which was never used for such purposes during his time spent there. Whilst staying at Liliesleaf farm, he frequently met with Arthur Goldreich and engaged in many wide-ranging political discussions including Arthur Goldreich’s experiences as a soldier in the Palmach, the military wing of the Haganah, which was the political authority of the Jewish National Movement in Palestine. As a result of these discussions, on his return back to South Africa, Nelson Mandela recommended that Arthur Goldreich should be recruited to MK – but he had no personal knowledge whether this was done or not.
Nelson Mandela then dealt with another of the allegations made by the state, which was that the aims and objects of the ANC and the Communist Party were the same. Nelson Mandela claimed that this was an old allegation which had been disproved during the Treason trial but had now reared its head once again. Nelson Mandela argued, amongst other things, that:
The ANC, unlike the Communist Party, admitted Africans only as members. Its chief goal was, and is, for the African people to win unity and full political rights. The Communist Party's main aim, on the other hand, was to remove the capitalists and to replace them with a working-class government. The Communist Party sought to emphasise class distinctions whilst the ANC seeks to harmonise them. This is, My Lord, a vital distinction.
It is true that there has often been close co-operation between the ANC and the Communist Party. But co-operation is merely proof of a common goal – in this case the removal of white supremacy – and is not proof of a complete community of interests.
In dealing with this issue Nelson Mandela also dealt with the allegation that the acts of sabotage committed by the MK was directed by so-called agitators or was part of a communist plot. In regard to the relationship between the ANC and the SACP, it is worth quoting at length this particular extract from Nelson Mandela’s statement:
It is perhaps difficult for white South Africans, with an ingrained prejudice against communism, to understand why experienced African politicians so readily accept communists as their friends. But to us the reason is obvious. Theoretical differences, amongst those fighting against oppression is, a luxury which cannot be afforded. What is more, for many decades communists were the only political group in South Africa who were prepared to treat Africans as human beings and as their equals; who were prepared to eat with us; talk with us, live with us, and work with us. They were the only political group which was prepared to work with the Africans for the attainment of political rights and a stake in society. Because of this, there are many Africans who today tend to equate freedom with communism. They are supported in this belief by a legislature which brands all exponents of democratic government and African freedom as communists and banned many of them, who are not communists, under the Suppression of Communism Act. Although My Lord I am not a communist and I have never been a member of the Communist Party, I myself have been banned, have been named under that pernicious Act because of the role I played in the Defiance Campaign. I have also been banned and convicted under that Act.
It is not only in internal politics that we count communists as amongst those who support our cause. In the international field, communist countries have always come to our aid. In the United Nations and other Councils of the world the communist bloc has supported the Afro-Asian struggle against colonialism and often seems to be more sympathetic to our plight than some of the Western powers. Although there is a universal condemnation of apartheid, the communist bloc speaks out against it with a louder voice than most of the western world. In these circumstances, it would take a brash young politician, such as I was in 1949, to proclaim that the Communists are our enemies.
Following from this final self-reflexive statement, Judge De Wet interjected, “Well Mandela, it is time for the court to adjourn”. Following this adjournment Nelson Mandela resumed his statement at the point where he wished to inform the court – having stated that he was not a communist – what his political beliefs were and how those explained his position in MK and his attitude in regard to the use of force. During this Nelson Mandela discussed his childhood, his attraction to the idea of a classless society, and his personal belief that the most important task of the present moment was the removal of racial discrimination and the attainment of democratic rights on the basis of the Freedom Charter. While he welcomed the assistance of any communists whose aim was to further this task but he “had gained the impression that communists regard the parliamentary system of the West as undemocratic and reactionary”. Nelson Mandela said that he personally admired such a system and regarded “the British Parliament as the most democratic institution in the world” adding that “the independence and impartiality of its judiciary never fail to arouse my admiration”. He claimed to have similar respect for the American Congress and had drawn inspiration for thinking a new type of political system from examples and ideas in both the East and the West.
Nelson Mandela then decided to deal with some of the exhibits which were written in his handwriting and explained the circumstances under which they had come to be written. He dealt with Exhibits R.20, R.21 and R.22 first which he said were notes he had made based on lectures drafted by another person who was a close friend and a senior member of the ANC and the SACP who had been trying to convince Nelson Mandela to join the SACP for several years. Nelson Mandela claimed that he had told the author that he had found the content too complicated for the ordinary reader and his notes were the result of his friend’s request for him to try and make his original work accessible to a wider audience. Other exhibits dealt with at this stage by Nelson Mandela were those suggesting that financial support had been received from outside the country.
Following a discussion of those documents, Nelson Mandela referred back to the evidence given by Mr X and made the following comment, which it is once again worth quoting at length:
As I understand the State case, and in particular the evidence of X, Umkhonto was the inspiration of the Communist Party which sought, by playing upon imaginary grievances, to enrol the African people into an army which ostensibly was to fight for African freedom, but in reality was fighting for a communist state. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the suggestion is preposterous. Umkhonto was formed by Africans to further their struggle for freedom. Communists and others supported the movement, and we only wish that more sections of the community would join us.
Our fight is against real and not imaginary hardships or, to use the language of the State Prosecutor, 'so-called hardships'. Basically, My Lord, we fight against two features which are the hallmarks of African life in South Africa and which are entrenched by legislation which we seek to have repealed. These features are poverty and lack of human dignity, and we do not need communists or so-called 'agitators' to teach us about these things.
Nelson Mandela, thereafter, went on to discuss the structural obstacles preventing African economic advancement out of poverty, the racist policies and practices of Bantu Education, the oppressive Pass Laws, the breakdown of African family-life, and “the lack of human dignity experienced by Africans is the direct result of the policy of white supremacy”. He warned the court and the government of South Africa simultaneously that:
The only cure is to alter the conditions under which Africans are forced to live and to meet their legitimate grievances. Africans want to be paid a living wage. Africans want to perform work which they are capable of doing, and not work which the Government declares them to be capable of. We want to be allowed to live where we obtain work, and not be endorsed out of an area because we were not born there. We want to be allowed and not to be obliged to live in rented houses which we can never call our own. We want to be part of the general population, and not confined to living in our ghettoes. African men want to have their wives and children to live with them where they work, and not to be forced into an unnatural existence in men's hostels. Our women want to be with their men folk and not to be left permanently widowed in the reserves. We want to be allowed out after eleven o'clock at night and not to be confined to our rooms like little children. We want to be allowed to travel in our own country and to seek work where we want to, where we want to and not where the Labour Bureau tells us to. We want a just share in the whole of South Africa; we want security and a stake in society.
Above all, My Lord, we want equal political rights, because without them our disabilities will be permanent. I know this sounds revolutionary to the whites in this country, because the majority of voters will be Africans. This makes the white man fear democracy. But this fear cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the only solution which will guarantee racial harmony and freedom for all. It is not true that the enfranchisement of all will result in racial domination. Political division, based on colour, is entirely artificial and, when it disappears, so will the domination of one colour group by another. The ANC has spent half a century fighting against racialism. When it triumphs as it certainly must, it will not change that policy.
This, Nelson Mandela stated, was the truly national struggle of the African people that the ANC was fighting for, and it amounted to a “struggle for the right to live”. Following this Nelson Mandela delivered to the court what has become the most well-known and commonly cited passage from the Rivonia trial:
During my lifetime I have dedicated my life to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal for which I hope to live for and to see realised. But, My Lord, if it needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.
Following this final declaration the people in the gallery erupted in tumultuous applause with many shouting out “Amandla!” and other exclamations. Mr Fischer then called Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu, to take the witness stand.
Walter Sisulu’s Evidence
Examination-in-chief by Mr Fischer.
Mr Fischer began by asking Walter Sisulu a few questions about his personal background. Walter Sisulu told the court that he was born at Ngcobo and would be turning 52 years old in May, 1964. Walter Sisulu had been formally educated up until Standard Four after which he worked in the gold mines and own his own business on the Rand. Later in life Walter Sisulu educated himself further, become a professional politician employed as the Secretary General of the ANC, and married a wife with whom he had five children. Walter Sisulu also informed the court that he had defective eye sight and read rather slowly as a result.
Mr Fischer then asked Walter Sisulu to briefly tell the court what his political views were, to which he answered:
My political views are inspired by the desire to achieve national emancipation for the African people form European domination and oppression. I have expressed these views in meetings and in my residence.
Walter Sisulu claimed that he had never been a member of the communist party. When Mr Fischer asked Walter Sisulu if he had travelled “behind the Iron Curtain”, Walter Sisulu replied that he had travelled to countries in both the East and the West when he had been invited to attend the World Federation of Democratic Youth festival in Romania in 1953. Mr Fischer asked Walter Sisulu to make it clear where he stood in terms of “what one might call the two main political trends of this century”. These were the trends of socialism/communism versus that of Western capitalism. In response to this Walter Sisulu said “I would rather had the best of both. I myself am influenced by Socialism in my outlook”. Walter Sisulu continued to explain that he felt that this was the political opinion of most Africans and other people in colonial situations.
Walter Sisulu stated that in line with his political views he believed that the task of immediate and fundamental necessity in South Africa was the achievement of political rights for African people. In regard to the ANC, Walter Sisulu stated that it was an organisation open to the inclusion of all ideologies which aimed for the freedom of the African people. Mr Fischer then drew Walter Sisulu’s attention to the statement Nelson Mandela had delivered in court that morning and asked Walter Sisulu to comment on the hardships he had personally suffered as a black person in South Africa. Walter Sisulu discussed the pass laws, being under-paid, fearing arbitrary persecution, and other point which had all been raided by Nelson Mandela. Walter Sisulu stated that he had been banned under the Suppression of Communism Act, placed under house arrest, and detained.
Mr Fischer then dealt with Walter Sisulu’s joining of the ANC in 1940 and asked him what his attitude to communists in the ANC at that time had been. Walter Sisulu gave the following response:
Well, as I’ve already mentioned that the African National Congress Youth League was a very nationalistic organisation. It was hostile to communists. I myself voted in one of the National Conferences a motion for the expulsion of the communists. I felt that to deal the loyalty of communists in the ANC would not do for the members of the ANC and also being members of the Communist Party, but this was strenuously opposed by the ANC veterans at that conference, the conservatives, and in the Resolutions Committee in which I was, one of the members, it was in fact the foundation member, who is today the leading member of the Liberal Party. They are the people who opposed this on the grounds that the African National Congress was not a political party. It was the mouthpiece of the African people and as such, all Africans were entitled to be members.
Like Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu explained that since it was founded the ANC adopted purely constitutional methods which were only altered with the adoption of the 1949 programme of action which brought about the Defiance Campaign which commenced in 1952. He added that from 1912 until 1961 the ANC had adhered strictly to a policy of non-violence. By 1960 Walter Sisulu, like Nelson Mandela, claimed that groups pledged to violent forms of struggles had already emerged across the country and even amongst groups within the ANC itself. According to Walter Sisulu it was because of the ANC leadership’s believe in the possibility of non-violent methods bringing about a peaceful solution that the call was made for the National Convention which took place in March, 1961.
The government ignored the call to attend the National Convention and a general strike was called in protest against this. Walter Sisulu went onto discusses the increasing turn towards violence amongst the oppressed African people, and the state massacres at Sharpeville and Mpondoland, which had made some leaders in the ANC realise “that the policy of non-violence could no longer be completely relied upon”. Like Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu then went on to discuss how widespread fears of an imminent inter-racial civil war had influenced his and other leader’s thinking in regard to the use of violent methods. In response to a question regarding his personal attitude towards the loss of life and destruction of property, Walter Sisulu stated, “I hate destruction of property, and I hate more the loss of life, but I am a realist. I realised that the African people like all oppressed people have got a moral right to revolt against oppression.”
According to Walter Sisulu the National Executive of the ANC eventually came to a decision in June to allow its members to participate in sabotage, a form of violent action, but the organisation itself would not undertake any form of violent struggle. In regard to the formation of Umkhonto We Sizwe, Walter Sisulu claimed that he was in touch with the leaders of the organisation but the ANC decided that they could not afford for both Nelson Mandela and Walter Sisulu to be in the organisation. As such Walter Sisulu was told about the actions and affairs of MK but remained with the ANC in the “political field”.
In regard to the PAFMESCA conference Nelson Mandela attended as an ANC delegate in early-1962 Walter Sisulu explained the reason why it was important for the ANC to send Nelson Mandela on this tour of the continent seeking scholarships for African students to attain higher education. He admitted that Nelson Mandela had informed the Secretariat of the ANC that he was asked by the National High Command to explore possibilities of military training in Africa, but the matter was not discussed by the ANC at the time. Walter Sisulu said that when the ANC National Executive received Nelson Mandela’s first report detailing the overwhelming support he had been promised for military training in African states, there was a “unanimous view that the African Nation Congress Executive should not hinder this and should in spirit give permission for it”. Walter Sisulu went on to echo the reasons for the ANC’s decision to support MK’s preparations for the possible future situation in which guerrilla warfare may have been a necessity for the African liberation struggle to progress. He clarified the permission granted by the ANC was for the external mission and MK to organise military training only outside of South Africa.
Walter Sisulu explained that the external mission was a collective of ANC representatives operating outside of the Republic with offices in Tanganyika, Ghana, Morocco and Egypt. The ANC in South Africa, according to Walter Sisulu, took no part in sabotage or in recruiting people for military training, both of which were “handled by the units of Umkhonto”. At this stage Judge De Wet intervened and clarified through Walter Sisulu that the National Secretariat of the ANC did communicate and issue instructions to the external mission to make arrangements for military training. Walter Sisulu added, however, that the recruiting itself had been the responsibility of the MK units.
Mr Fischer then asked Walter Sisulu to comment on the position of the ANC Executive toward the continuation of military training at the time when Nelson Mandela returned in June, 1962. Walter Sisulu described the meeting in which Nelson Mandela gave a full report back and a number of members, himself included, expressed the view that it was premature to embark upon military training at this stage. The decision reached by the ANC Executive was, however, was to once again endorse its early stance that it would not hinder such operations outside of South Africa. Mr Fischer the asked, “Now was this a decision Mr Sisulu, to go in for guerrilla warfare?” Walter Sisulu responded:
No, there was no such a decision. The African National Congress made it perfectly clear, that all that it had decided upon was the… was that the military training can be undertaken, but no other decision should be taken without fullest consultation. It was by no means a lesson to go ahead with guerrilla warfare.
Thereafter, Mr Fischer began to lead Walter Sisulu in regard to his experience under house arrest but was interrupted by Judge De Wet who called for an adjournment at this stage until the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.53/3A/8e) (Vol.53/3A/9e) (Vol.53/3A/10e).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 20th April, 1964, (Ms.385/36/1).
Mr Fischer’s address, Statement from dock by Nelson Mandela [Acc.No.1], W M E Sisulu [Acc.No.2]. Marked AA1. (MS.385/6).
File containing details about Accused Nos. 1-7: TS, Nelson Mandela (MS.385/31/3/1).
File containing details about Accused Nos. 1-7: TS, Walter Sisulu (MS.385/31/3/2).
WITS Historical Papers:
Defence Opening Address and Nelson Mandela’s Statement (AD1844.A19).
Walter Sisulu’s Evidence, Volume 1: pp1-21 (AD1844.A20.1).
Extract of Walter Sisulu’s Evidence (Volume 1), (AD1844.A20.4).
Analysis of Defence Evidence: Walter Sisulu’s Personal Position (AD1844.A30b9).
Statement on which Walter Sisulu’s evidence was led (AD1844.Bc2).
Key Words
Defence Opening Address, Bram Fischer, Nelson Mandela, Statement from the Dock, Walter Sisulu, ANC, Sabotage, Military Training, Guerrilla Warfare, Civil War, Violence, Communists, External Mission.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full acces.