Description
This was the second day of Walter Sisulu’s examination-in-chief by Mr Fischer and the first day on which he received cross-examination from Dr Yutar. The document entitled “Operation Mayibuye” was perhaps the central aspect dealt with by Walter Sisulu during his examination-in-chief on this day. In dealing with Operation Mayibuye Walter Sisulu explained the document was an argumentative proposal, authored by Arthur Goldreich, in favour of a move to guerrilla warfare in South Africa which was never decided upon by the ANC and the other organisations within the consultative structures and tradition of the Congress Alliance. Following the discussion of Operation Mayibuye Mr Fischer dealt with certain accusations made against Walter Sisulu in the evidence of state witnesses such as English Tsolo Mashiloane, Essop Suliman and Florence Mtombela. Walter Sisulu denied allegations that he had been involved in arranging the transportation of MK recruits to the Bechuanaland (Now Botswana) border, that he had had illegal meetings with banned personas at his house (when he was actually in jail), as well as the allegation that he had ever gone to the SK Building in Orlando with Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi. Shortly thereafter, Mr Fischer concluded his questioning and Dr Yutar took charge of the cross-examination of Walter Sisulu.
This was the first day of a five day marathon during which Dr Yutar questioned Walter Sisulu on almost every aspect of his evidence-in-chief as well as Nelson Mandela’s speech given from the dock. The two of the main exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar on this day were Exhibits VV and WW, which he argued were both ANC issued pamphlets stating that the organisation had charged its policy to one of violence in 1961. However, the exhibits which would feature most prominently in Dr Yutar’s cross-examination of Walter Sisulu as a whole were Nelson Mandela’s dairy (Exhibit R.13), the broadcast drafted by Walter Sisulu (Exhibit R.170) and of course Operation Mayibuye (Exhibit R.71). Of these exhibits, however, only Nelson Mandela’s dairy and Walter Sisulu’s draft broadcast were dealt with in part by Dr Yutar on this day before court was adjourned. From the outset and right throughout his cross-examination Walter Sisulu made it clear that he would not divulge any information which may implicate any person who was not safely out of the country, or one of his co-accused in the Rivonia trial, despite Dr Yutar’s suggestion that this was in conflict with the oath he took to “the Almighty” when he stepped into the witness box.
Walter Sisulu’s Evidence
Mr Fischer began his examination on this day by recalling the document called “Africans’ Claims”, which Walter Sisulu had mentioned yesterday, and said was based on the Atlantic Charter and was a forerunner of the Freedom Charter. Walter Sisulu explained that the committee which had drafted the document in 1943, “consisted of leading intellectuals, leading business men, conservatives and communists, all united by their desire to achieve freedom for themselves and for all the people who have made South Africa their home”. Mr Fischer handed in Exhibit DK to the court which was a volume detailing the names and capacities of some of the prominent African people who had been part of the committee.
Walter Sisulu gave evidence to the effect that by May, 1961, all previous forms of mass non-violent protest used by the ANC had been declared illegal, and by June 1961, the 90-day detention laws had come into effect. Both of these factors had a significant influence on the ANC’s decision to support the formation of MK and not to discipline its members who chose to participate in organised and controlled acts of sabotage. Walter Sisulu repeated the evidence he gave yesterday concerning his attitude towards and relationship with MK adding that the information he received regarding the organisation was that which “had a bearing on political questions”.
Attention was then returned by Mr Fischer to Walter Sisulu’s experiences under house arrest from October, 1962, just after he had made arrangements organising the Lobatse conference. Walter Sisulu explained that he had heard that the house arrest orders had been issued whilst he was in Bechuanaland (Now Botswana) making preparations for the conference and decided to go back home to receive them there so as to give no false impression that he intended to leave the country. Walter Sisulu claimed that he was issued his house arrest orders a few days before the Lobatse conference took place and as a result, Walter Sisulu argued, any evidence suggesting that he had attended the conference was false.
Walter Sisulu explained how difficult it was for himself and many other members of the Liberation Movement who had been banned, detained, forced into exile or placed under house arrest to conduct meetings and continue to function as a collective. It was for this reason, he argued, that the situation arose in which there was an overlap in terms of the roles and affiliations of certain people working for aims of both the ANC and MK. This overlapping, said Walter Sisulu, was reflected in the letters found at Travallyn which indicated the correspondence of such people acting in two capacities.
Thereafter, Walter Sisulu told the court that he and Duma Nokwe were in the National Secretariat of the ANC in late-1962 at the time when they were both facing various charges under the Unlawful Organisation Act for which they feared they might go to jail. As a result the NEC of the ANC decided to recruit Govan Mbeki from Port Elizabeth to become a member of the National Secretariat. Walter Sisulu explained that Govan Mbeki had accepted the appointment and moved to Johannesburg. Later he was issued with house arrest orders requiring he leave Johannesburg and return to Port Elizabeth. The NEC of the ANC advised Govan Mbeki to ignore these orders and go underground instead. According to Walter Sisulu, this was how Govan Mbeki came to be at Rivonia in April, 1963.
Walter Sisulu explained that Govan Mbeki took over the responsibility of dealing with correspondence with the National High Command and the external mission from Duma Nokwe in January, 1963, before he came to Liliesleaf Farm. It was only once he was at Rivonia that Govan Mbeki was approached by the National High Command and accepted a position as one of its members – making his existing correspondence work for the ANC much easier. Walter Sisulu said that contrary to the claims made in the indictment, he had never known Accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6 as members of the National High Command and had never seen any of them in the meetings of the National High Command to which he had been invited to attend.
After some time Mr Fischer came to deal with the document called Operation Mayibuye and asked if there had been talk, during late-1962 and early-1963, of changing from the tactic of sabotage to something else. Walter Sisulu claimed that he and the NEC of the ANC were unanimously opposed to the adoption of guerrilla warfare tactics during this time. He explained that in April he attended a meeting of the National High Command were he raised his concerns with “loose talk” of plans for guerrilla warfare. He said that Arthur Goldreich, who was not a member of the National High Command, had been instructed to led a committee to present a solid proposal for such plans to the National High Command at their next meeting – to which Walter Sisulu was also invited.
Early in May, 1963, Walter Sisulu attended the meeting of the National High Command at which the document Operation Mayibuye and the proposed decision to adopt guerrilla warfare tactics was discussed. Walter Sisulu explained that Arthur Goldreich had been tasked with leading this proposal because of his extensive knowledge of guerrilla warfare and broader military sciences as well as his past experience as a Commander of military forces in Israel. Walter Sisulu discussed at length the two main views, for and against, which were raised by members of the meeting and eventually summarised his own attitude in the following way:
My attitude was that the National High Command would… must know that a matter like this will require the fullest attention of the movement, but I had not yet made a study of the document as such, but even from the little that I was able to observe, it appeared to me that the question of guerrilla warfare is not quite a feasible proposition at this stage, and that the document in itself did not seem to me to argue a case sufficiently.
Walter Sisulu stated that due to the consultative structure and tradition of the Congress Alliance, the ANC would never have had the authority or ability to make the decision to allow MK to go over to guerrilla warfare on its own. Walter Sisulu agreed with Mr Fischer’s suggestion that if the ANC had taken such a unanimous decision it would have risked splitting the Liberation Movement. Following this meeting of the National High Command in early May, 1963, Walter Sisulu attended a meeting of the ANC Secretariat in which they were informed of Operation Mayibuye and the discussion had by the High Command.
Once again Walter Sisulu’s evidence was that, although there were some members of this meeting who supported the proposal for guerrilla warfare, there were more who raised concerns of the logistical and political feasibility of such a plan. The decision was taken to collect more information from the National High Command to present the issue in as much detail as possible to the NEC of the ANC. The Logistics Committee established by the National High Command was responsible for providing necessary information regarding the feasibility of Operation Mayibuye. The meeting did not take place, however, as the Logistics Committee had been unable to collect the information that it required. Denis Goldberg was brought in by the Logistics Committee to do certain investigations and collect information under the supervision and instruction of Arthur Goldreich.
Walter Sisulu saw Mr X for the first time in June, 1963, when he was at Rivonia for a medical check-up. According to Walter Sisulu, he was sitting in a chair when Mr Z came into the room with Mr X. He claimed that as soon as they arrived he got up and merely greeted Mr X and Mr Z and said he was leaving after which he left Liliesleaf Farm in no particular hurry.
After a brief adjournment for tea Mr Fischer turned Walter Sisulu’s attention to the meeting of the High Command in July, 1963, during which the Logistics Committee made a number of reports on the possible implementation of Operation Mayibuye. Walter Sisulu described at length the various reasons he had raised in objection to the plan for guerrilla warfare and stated:
Well I remember that there was a strong argument against the plan. It did not amount to saying that we were rejecting it out of hand. The work could be continued with, that is more information which we wanted could still be submitted, and in fact, it was suggested that they should go back and give us more information, that is now the Logistics Committee. The meeting adjourned without taking a decision, except saying that well, this is really inadequate material.
Walter Sisulu claimed that on the 11th of July, 1963, there was supposed to be a meeting with Govan Mbeki, Lionel Bernstein, Bob Hepple, and himself, to discuss the question of the 90 day detention laws at 3 o’clock. Without discussing the matter at length Walter Sisulu admitted that half an hour before this meeting was due to take place he had had an appointment with a dentist who did not know his true identity and which lasted for roughly ten minutes. Walter Sisulu continued to explain that a meeting of the ANC Secretariat had also been planned for the 11th in which rumours concerning Operation Mayibuye were going to be discussed and the document presented to the membership for consideration.
According to Walter Sisulu this meeting was going to take place at a location in the township and it was for the purpose of attending that meeting of the ANC Secretariat that Raymond Mhlaba was present at Liliesleaf Farm at the time of the raid. The meeting of the ANC Secretariat in which Raymond Mhlaba was to give a report on ANC matters in Port Elizabeth and the document Operation Mayibuye and the research done by the Logistics Committee were going to be discussed obviously never took place because of the police raid of Liliesleaf Farm.
Walter Sisulu stated that Liliesleaf Farm was never used as the headquarters of the ANC. In regard to Travallyn, Walter Sisulu said that he had been driven there by Denis Goldberg, who was staying on the property temporarily, and was informed that it was property bought by MK as a hideout for people who had gone underground, a place for the manufacturing of explosives and other items, as well as a safe house for trainees in transit out of the country.
Mr Fischer then asked Walter Sisulu about the broadcast of 26th June in which he had taken part and Walter Sisulu said that it was correct to say that he had been involved in this broadcast but he also added that it had not taken place at Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia. Thereafter Mr Fischer put it Walter Sisulu that state witness Essop Suliman had said that he had arranged and paid for the transportation of recruits, to which Walter Sisulu replied that this was “absolutely not correct”. Walter Sisulu said that he had only ever made use of Essop Suliman’s taxi service for a number of ANC conferences and, on one occasion, the transportation of students to Francistown amongst whom was the son of Govan Mbeki.
Mr Fischer then asked Walter Sisulu to deal with the evidence English Mashiloane had given in regard to meetings Walter Sisulu attended in the S/K Building. Walter Sisulu said that at the time English Mashiloane was claiming Walter Sisulu had attended meetings with banned persons at his house, he had in fact been in jail. Furthermore, although he admitted that such meetings had been held at the S/K Building prior to the emergency period, he denied having ever gone to see English Mashiloane with Elias Motsoaledi.
Walter Sisulu went on to make certain admissions and denials in regard to the evidence given by Abel Mthembu and Florence Mtombela before being asked by Mr Fischer to “say a word” about the presence of Ahmed Kathrada ta Rivonia on 11th July, 1963. Walter Sisulu explained that Ahmed Kathrada had been at Liliesleaf Farm on the day in order to discuss the content of a broadcast he and Walter Sisulu had intended to make that evening in response to a recent public statement made by the Minister of Finance, Dr Donges. Walter Sisulu insisted that Ahmed Kathrada had not been there to attend any of the meetings scheduled for that day.
In regard to Bob Hepple, Walter Sisulu claimed that it was a result of his legal knowledge and experience working with the Defence and Aid Committee that he had been brought in to explain the implications of the 90 day detention laws and what mean of legal recourse were available. Lionel Bernstein was said by Walter Sisulu to have been “a sort of specialist on propaganda, and we wanted him in particular for this aspect”. Andrew Mlangeni was known by Walter Sisulu has having been involved in ANC affairs prior to the organisation being banned in 1960. Walter Sisulu recalled that Andrew Mlangeni had left South Africa and come back in early-1963 by he did not know if Andrew Mlangeni had become active in the ANC again at this time. Lastly, Walter Sisulu claimed that he knew that Elias Motsoaledi had been active with MK and the Liberation Movement more broadly.
In concluding his examination-in-chief Mr Fischer asked Walter Sisulu if he was fully aware of the implications of his having given evidence under oath which was subject to cross-examination. Walter Sisulu responded:
That is correct my lord, except this is not intended as being discourteous to the court, but I would like to make my position very clear my lord, that I am prepared to testify in this case in regard to the part which my organisation played, and some of the people connected with this, but my lord I certainly would find it difficult to testify or to answer questions relating to my organisation which might lead to the prosecution of my people. I would not do anything which would lead to revealing the workings of my organisation and confidential matters, I would not be able to testify in so far as that aspect is concerned. I am aware that by doing so I might worsen my position, but I find that I can do no otherwise.
Mr Fischer asked no further questions and stepped down for the state to begin its cross-examination.
Cross-examination by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar began telling Walter Sisulu that he was going to be kept at the witness box for a long time and if he got tired he should ask for a chair to be provided. Dr Yutar then launched directly into the subject which would consume the majority of his cross-examination on this day. That subject was the “professed feeling of the ANC and Umkhonto we Sizwe, that in the acts of sabotage committed, there was to be no injury to life, no killings of persons” and what precautions either organisations had taken to “see that neither result followed from any act of sabotage committed”.
Walter Sisulu explained that the choice of targets was an indication that the MK had no intention to injure people. Dr Yutar put a number of sabotage acts, in which state witness had given evidence arguing that there had been danger posed to people, to Walter Sisulu who denied that such acts had been planned or authorised by MK. In reference to the incident in which a passenger train had been targeted with a petrol bomb in Durban, Walter Sisulu explained that Billy Nair had not been removed from the Regional Command because he was a responsible leader and the evidence of Mr X had shown that this act had been a mistake and was not authorised by any unit of MK.
Dr Yutar then cross-examined Walter Sisulu in regard to a number of pamphlets issued by the ANC and MK in various parts of the country from which he suggested confirmed the state’s case that the ANC had adopted a policy of violence and was itself inciting acts of sabotage and murder as part of the struggle against white supremacy. Walter Sisulu maintained that both organisations had taken as many steps as they could have in order to prevent injury or death in the MK’s use of sabotage as a tactic of political resistance. Furthermore, he argued that “neither ANC nor Umkhonto would ever approve of the shooting of a state witness just because he is giving evidence for the State”. When this issue of the murder of a state witness was raised both Mr Bizos and Mr Fischer made interjections reminding the court that no evidence had been led to say that this murder had been as a result of this man being a state witness at all.
Exhibits VV and WW were two pamphlets on which Walter Sisulu was cross-examined by Dr Yutar at considerable length. A significant portion of time at this stage was taken up by a back and forth between Dr Yutar and Walter Sisulu in which the latter repeatedly refused to give the name of the person whose house had been used for the drafting of the second pamphlet. Walter Sisulu argued that the statements appearing in these pamphlets, in which MK was labelled as the military wing of the ANC, were incorrect in his opinion. His personal position was that MK was part of the Liberation Movement and that this misunderstanding of it as a military organ of the ANC was due to confusion caused during the period of overlapping membership between the two organisations, which was itself a result of the government’s introduction of new forms of repressive legislation in the early part of 1960.
Dr Yutar also cross-examined Walter SIsulu in regard to pamphlets distributed by the PAC and ones issued by the ANC which were about the PAC. In regard to these Walter Sisulu stated that the ANC was prepared to work together with the PAC and Poqo in planning and executing further acts of sabotage if it could be agreed that such acts would be carried out under responsible leadership and in line with the policy of ANC. Throughout consideration of all of these political pamphlets and certain Items listed in Annexure B, Dr Yutar attempted to suggest that the ANC was directly implicated in acts of sabotage which had caused harm to persons as well as instances of murder based on political motivations.
The next significant suggestion made by Dr Yutar was that “the ANC leaders, the brave, intelligent leaders, told the rank and file, if you are arrested, rot in gaol” and that it was “the policy of the ANC that if you should be questioned by the police rather than giving evidence, commit suicide”. Walter Sisulu said that it was the policy of the ANC that one should not make any statement when arrested but not that one should commit suicide and added that if this had, as the state was alleging, been the teaching of Denis Goldberg at Mamre Camp, then it would have been incorrect.
Later Dr Yutar picked up this subject again, with reference to the complaint of Mr X, when he asked Walter Sisulu to comment on the fact that two leaders, Harold Wolpe and Arthur Goldreich, had fled the country while rank and file members were told to rot in jail. Walter Sisulu said that these two men had had the opportunity to leave and there was nothing wrong, in his opinion, with the fact that they had taken that opportunity. Dr Yutar asked if Walter Sisulu could see the difference between Nelson Mandela, whom Mr X had complimented as a brave man who went overseas but then returned to report back, on the one hand, and Harold Wolpe and Arthur Goldreich on the other. Walter Sisulu replied, “Well, if a man can escape it, why should he stay”.
Returning to issue of pamphlets which had been issued by the ANC Walter Sisulu explained, in response to the question posed by Judge De Wet, that these circulars were not instructions issued to members of the ANC and even those issued to the Regional Commands of MK would not have been received as instructions but merely as explanatory propaganda documents. Thereafter, Walter Sisulu once again addressed the issue of the separation of MK and the ANC and the limited nature of supervision the National Executive of the ANC had over decisions taken by the National High Command.
Dr Yutar then produced two more pamphlets (Exhibits QQQ and RRR) issued by the ANC which he also suggested were clearly inciting acts of violence and civil war in South Africa. As had been the case throughout the whole of this day’s cross-examination, when Dr Yutar suggested that these publications were threats made by the ANC which had decided to embark upon the course of guerrilla warfare and eventually civil war, Walter Sisulu insisted that they were explanations or warnings of the inevitability of such violent responses from the African population under the current circumstances created by the white supremacist state.
Thereafter, attention was placed on the matter of the state’s allegation that the ANC was dominated by the SACP, which Walter Sisulu completely denied in line with the statements made in this regard by Nelson Mandela during this morning’s session. Dr Yutar suggested that in addition to the South African state and its police force, there were also other African states who expressed the view that the ANC was dominated by communists. Walter Sisulu said that he could not deny that this could be the case but he recalled Nelson Mandela having reported back that the issue was that some African state had the impression that the ANC was dominated by white people.
Dr Yutar referred to Nelson Mandela’s diary (Exhibit R.13) and specifically the entry which spoke of the impression of communist domination of the ANC and the opposition “to any concept of partnership between black and white”. Dr Yutar suggested that this was in contradiction to the purported views of both Nelson Mandela and Walter Sisulu that inter-racial cooperation was “the only answer” to moving the struggle forward positively in the South African context. Walter Sisulu added that “the position is decided by the people of South Africa, not the people outside”. At this point Judge De Wet intervened once again and said, “Living together, but doesn’t that involve, according to your ideas, control by the non-white element, because they have got more in numbers?” To which Walter Sisulu replied, “My lord, we have always maintained that perhaps because of historical conditions in this country, that the mere fact that the Africans are in the majority would not mean black domination”.
Judge De Wet said that it would have to involve “black control” and suggested that Walter Sisulu would never vote for a white person to represent him in parliament. To this suggestion Walter Sisulu replied:
No, not to be represented my lord. We don’t want to be represented but we say if the people of South Africa elected Dr Verwoerd, by all means let him come to Parliament. If he is elected by the whole lot. We are not fighting the issue on the basis of colour. We say that can never work.
After further consideration of Walter Sisulu’s role in the ANC, Dr Yutar eventually asked for the names of those members of the ANC Secretariat who had been supportive of the proposed turn to violence. To this Walter Sisulu said “Well I don’t know why we should be quarrelling about this”. Dr Yutar insisted that he did not want to quarrel but put the question of these peoples’ names to him once again, prompting Walter Sisulu to say, “No but you are putting me in a position whereby I have to continue saying I can’t give the names”.
All Walter Sisulu would say was that the members who were in favour of a shift to violence were of the rank and file, and not the National Executive of the ANC, but that discussions were being had in this regard at all levels of the ANC. He then went on to tell Dr Yutar that he could not comment on whether or not the current police of the SACP was one of violence or not. Dr Yutar suggested that Walter Sisulu and Nelson Mandela were both very eager to tell the court that the ANC had nothing to do with the SACP. This caused Mr Fischer to stand and exclaim, “No never!” after which Dr Yutar rephrased his suggestion to the effect that both had claimed that the ANC and SACP “were not allied in this great venture”. Walter Sisulu’s attempt to respond was cut short by Dr Yutar who then turned attention to Exhibit R.39 and read a paragraph from the Programme of the South African Communist Party.
In reading certain extracts from this exhibit as well as a draft broadcast written by Walter Sisulu (Exhibit R.170) Dr Yutar argued that the policy of the SACP was one of violence and that it directly allied itself with the ANC as the head of the broader National Liberation Movement. Dr Yutar highlighted the fact that this document spoke not only of the National Liberation Movement but also of its Army of Liberation. Walter Sisulu conceded that the short-term goals of the SACP laid out in this programme coincided with the short-term goals of the ANC. Although he said that there were fundamental differences in the long-term goals of both organisations, Dr Yutar said that he did not want to hear them as his indictment only concerned the short-term.
After some further discussion of difficulties concerning black and white partnerships in the struggle for liberation Judge De Wet brought proceedings to a close and adjourned until 10am the following morning.
Further cross-examination reserved.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.53/4A/11e) (Vol.53/4A/12e) (Vol.53/4A/13e) (Vol.53/4A/14e) (Vol.53/4A/15e) (Vol.53/4B/16e) (Vol.53/4B/17e) (Vol.53/4B/18e) (Vol.53/4B/19e) (Vol.53/4B/20e).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 21st April, 1964, (Ms.385/36/1).
File containing details about Accused Nos. 1-7: TS, Walter Sisulu (MS.385/31/3/2).
W M Sisulu continues. Marked AA2, [section missing], (MS.385/7).
WITS Historical Papers:
Walter Sisulu’s Evidence, Volume 1: pp.22-129 (AD1844.A20.2).
Analysis of Defence Evidence: Walter Sisulu’s Personal Position (AD1844.A30b9).
Statement on which Walter Sisulu’s evidence was led (AD1844.Bc2).
Key Words
Walter Sisulu, Policy of Violence, ANC, MK, Liliesleaf Farm, Rivonia, Sabotage, Guerrilla Warfare, Civil War, Racial Politics, SACP, Communism, Operation Mayibuye, Propaganda.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.