Description
The formation of MK and the adoption of certain controlled methods of violent struggle by the National Liberation Movement was one of the key issues dealt with first by Mr Berrange on this day’s examination-in-chief of Ahmed Kathrada. The other important matters dealt with by Mr Berrange before concluding his examination-in-chief were in regard to certain aspects of the evidence given by state witness, such as Joseph Mashifana, Essop Suliman, Piet Coetzee, and W/O Dirker, which Ahmed Kathrada would deny and reject as false information. Thereafter, Mr Berrange concluded his questioning and Dr Yutar stood to begin his cross-examination of Ahmed Kathrada.
Before beginning his cross-examination, however, Dr Yutar made two matters clear for the purpose of the record. The first claim made by Dr Yutar was that he “never at any stage used the word ‘so-called grievances’” in making the state’s case. Referring to a passage in his opening address, Dr Yutar said that the only similar phase he had used was the “so-called yoke of white man’s domination”. In the light thereof, argued Dr Yutar, “I think it must be perfectly clear my lord that I do not propose to attempt to hook any red herring that may be drawn across the trail of this trial. I am confining myself purely to the facts of the case.” Mr Berrange then apologised to the court for having seemingly misunderstood the statement Dr Yutar had made in his opening statement but added that the time in which he had actually used the phrase “so-called hardships” was during the examination-in-chief of Mr X. Judge De Wet turned his attention to the witness box and addressed Ahmed Kathrada.
(Vol.53, belts 51e – 55e) are not accounted for in the inventory but do have corresponding PDF documents. They are the first recordings of the second day of Ahmed Kathrada’s examination-in-chief. These missing recording covers the evidence which is partially given in extracts in (AD1844.A24.1: Extract of Ahmed Kathrada’s Evidence). This document is not a full transcript but it does provide verbatim extracts from the court record with accompanying page references.
Some of the key issues dealt with during Ahmed Kathrada’s cross-examination on this day were as follows: what Dr Yutar called the “very vicious document” which Ahmed Kathrada had drafted as a proposed broadcast in response to a speech given by the Minister of Finance; the Mountain View property and Ahmed Kathrada’s time spent there; the tactic of picketing and stay-at-home strikes; as well as many more general issues in regard to Ahmed Kathrada’s political career and connections as an activist in the NLM. One of the most interesting moments on this day was when Dr Yutar made the submission that Ahmed Kathrada was “nothing else but a communist agitator” and said to Ahmed Kathrada, in explaining this suggestion, “that you are a member of the Communist Party and that your job was is to agitate people, to make them believe that they are oppressed, and to incite them”. In reply to this suggestion by the state Ahmed Kathrada replied:
My lord, I thought we had solved this problem already. We don’t have to make any non-European believe that they are oppressed… The non-European people know that they are oppressed. They don’t need anybody to incite them.
This was just one of many instances in which Ahmed Kathrada used his cross-examination as a platform to express his political views.
Ahmed Kathrada’s Evidence
One of the very first matters dealt with by Mr Berrange on this day was the formation of MK and the ANC’s decision to facilitate and allow the incorporation of certain violent methods, namely sabotage, into the broader political struggle for freedom in South Africa. Ahmed Kathrada said that the formation of MK had not come as a surprise to him or his associates in the Indian Congress as:
It had become clear that the country was moving towards crisis… Over the years, particularly since the Nationalist Government, have come into power, they have increasingly closed the doors of any possibility of a peaceful solution in this country… It was my personal feeling and also the feeling of most of the people with whom I discussed the formation of this organisation that whilst persons such as myself would have reservations about it, I personally would do nothing to condemn its activities.
It was because of the actions of the apartheid government in making all other methods of protest impossible, argued Ahmed Kathrada, that when the oppressed peoples in South Africa resort to violence “they will be fully justified”. Mr Berrange referred Ahmed Kathrada to so-called “violent outbursts” which had erupted in places like Mpondoland, Zeerust, Sikukuneland, and Paarl, and asked if these instances “fit in with the classical description, or any description of guerrilla warfare”. Interestingly, Ahmed Kathrada did not deny that these instances could be seen as some form of guerrilla warfare. Instead he argued that:
From my understanding there might be a suggestion that the struggles of the people in places like Zeerust, Sikukuneland, could be a form of guerrilla warfare, but it’s precisely those that strengthen my belief that it cannot be a feasible method, because of the severe revivals, if not for anything else.
Mr Berrange then turned his attention to the conditions of Ahmed Kathrada’s house arrest order which he was served in 1962 while working with others on the Free Mandela Committee which was set up in Johannesburg to organise campaigns protesting the arrest of Nelson Mandela. The house arrest order was served to Ahmed Kathrada whilst he was inside the court where Nelson Mandela’s trial was being held and it stipulated that he could not leave his flat between 6pm and 7am on week days. In addition to this Ahmed Kathrada was also prevented from receiving any visitors, attending any political or social gatherings, communicating with any listed or banned persons, or from entering any factories (including printing works), and finally he was required to report to a police station every day.
Ahmed Kathrada was employed as a printers’ representative at the time of his house arrest and was thus prohibited from entering his offices which were considered a factory space in terms of the law. Ahmed Kathrada admitted, however, that his actual work was as a politician and his job as a printers’ representative was “purely ancillary” to his political work. Yet he was forced as a result of the orders to conduct his work as a printers’ representative outside of the premises which was “most unsatisfactory” and found it nearly impossible to continue with his political work. When the 90-day detention law was announced in early-1963 Ahmed Kathrada was sure as a result of his past experiences that he would be “amongst its first victims”. It was because of these conditions which made it impossible for Ahmed Kathrada to contribute meaningfully to the political life of the Indian community and the broader struggle against apartheid that he decided to go underground.
One of the key matters dealt with by Mr Berrange on this day was Exhibit R.187, which Ahmed Kathrada explained was a draft of the broadcast which had been prepared by himself and others in response to National Party Cabinet Member, Dr Donges’ speech which had directly called upon the Indian people to uphold the laws and institutions of the apartheid state and to stand in solidarity with the white citizenry. Ahmed Kathrada and others in the Indian Congress “were most indignant” and Mr Berrange asked the witness to read aloud to the court the whole of the draft broadcast which Ahmed Kathrada admitted used “somewhat strong and immoderate language” – a stylistic tendency which he explained “unfortunately is my weakness”.
Mr Berrange then asked Ahmed Kathrada to provide the court with a historical perspective of the “Indian community” in South Africa, which he did providing a perspective which spanned from the 1800s until the twentieth century. Recalling the statistics provided in the Golden Jubilee issue of the South African Year Book published in 1960, Ahmed Kathrada estimated that by 1960 about 92% of Africans, 89% of Europeans, and 90% of Indians, living in South Africa had been born in the country. By the time the Nationalists had come to power in 1948 the South African Indian community was in its 6th generation and “the overwhelming majority” of people within this community “have no ties with India”. As such Ahmed Kathrada concluded that “We [the Indian community] are as South African as anybody else” but it was clear by the mid-twentieth century that the existing government would never grant the Indian people rights in South Africa. Ahmed Kathrada continued to say:
There has been no pretence at all. In fact it has been made clear that the most of the Indian people could hope for in this country is the right to elect what they call an Indian Affairs Council with no powers whatsoever, or with rather very limited powers.
Mr Berrange then asked Ahmed Kathrada to tell the court something about “sociological surveys in regard to [the Indian community’s] financial position” in light of a widespread perception that “Indians are mostly well-to-do merchants who are wallowing in luxury”. Ahmed Kathrada provided an explanation which accounted for why it was that lives of Indian people, particularly in the Transvaal, have “been more or less centred around commerce”. Just one of the key facets of this explanation was the Law 3/1885 which made it impossible for Indians to acquire land in the Transvaal and thus barred them from engaging in the sphere of agriculture. Ahmed Kathrada went on to argue that one of the designed functions of the Group Areas Act was to ruin the Indian community economically and eventually drive the Indian people out of the country.
In justifying this view Ahmed Kathrada quoted a statement made in the election manifesto of the National Party in 1948 which read “The party holds the views that Indians are a foreign and outlandish element which is unassimilable. They can never become part of the country, and they must therefore be treated as an immigrant community”. Ahmed Kathrada also read this statement made by an inter-departmental committee on Land Tenure which was follows:
There appears to be an ever growing belief in the public mind that the only satisfactory solution of the Asiatic question is repatriation, and that whatever is done by way of legislation should be such as not to endanger the possibility of repatriation and deprive the public of one of its most deeply cherished hopes…
Ahmed Kathrada quoted two more statements by government authorities which showed clearly the intention to use the Group Areas Act as a means by which to drive the Indian people out of South Africa. Ahmed Kathrada explained that this was only three years ago (1961) that “the Government announced the failure of repatriation, and acknowledged then for the first time that Indians should be part and parcel of South Africa” and established the Indian Affairs Department to that end. The establishment of this institution, however, only acted to increase and step up the implementation of the Group Areas Act resulting in mass forced removals of Indian families form urban areas.
Mr Berrange then dealt with the evidence given by Joseph Mashifana concerning the erection of radio masts at Rivonia. Ahmed Kathrada confirmed that he had seen Joseph Mashifana and others erecting the radio masts at Rivonia. Judge De Wet interjected and told Mr Berrange that the witness had already given this evidence “and that they listened to the broadcast and, he with No.2 and 4, but couldn’t get through”. Mr Berrange acknowledge this and told Judge De Wet that his intention was to focus on who had been present when the radio masts were erected. Ahmed Kathrada recalled that the masts were erected on a Saturday afternoon and claimed that Lionel Bernstein was not involved in the process at all as far as he saw. Mr Berrange then went on to deal with the evidence of Essop Suliman and Ahmed Kathrada denied that he had ever been personally involved in the sending of people to the Bechuanaland (Now Botswana) border. Ahmed Kathrada admitted that he had hired Essop Suliman’s transport services in line with his political work (for conferences and campaigns) on a number of occasions but never for illegal purposes. Ahmed Kathrada added that he had also hired Essop Suliman to transport sports teams in the past as well – a comment which received much murmuring from those present in the court.
Mr Berrange then asked in Ahmed Kathrada had ever seen the witness Piet Coetzee at his place before. Ahmed Kathrada said that it was possible that Piet Coetzee had accompanied Essop Suliman to Ahmed Kathrada’s place on some occasion, however, as far as Ahmed Kathrada recollect Piet Coetzee had never come to his flat or offices. Mr Berrange then shifted attention and asked if Ahmed Kathrada had ever used the offices of James Kantor and Partners for any purpose connected with literation. Ahmed Kathrada confirmed that this was correct and said that he had been friends with Harold Wolpe since 1960. In October, 1962, Ahmed Kathrada went to the firm’s offices on at least two occasions with the consent of the Special Branch in Johannesburg in connection with an action he had laid against the police and the Magistrate. Ahmed Kathrada said that he never attended any political meetings at the offices of James Kantor and Partners.
The finally matter dealt with by Mr Berrange was the evidence given by W/O Dirker. Recalling W/O Dirker’s evidence Ahmed Kathrada argued that if he had been in conversation with Duma Nokwe in Walter Sisulu’s office and W/O Dirker had seen this, as he claimed had been the case, W/o Dirker would definitely have arrested both of these men who had been given orders preventing them for communicating. Thereafter Mr Berrange concluded his examination-in-chief.
Cross-examination by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar began by discussing Ahmed Kathrada’s proposed broadcast in response to a speech given by the Minister of Finance and said that it was a “very vicious document”. Ahmed Kathrada said that the broadcast reflected the way he felt at the time and did agree that it used immoderate language but did not agree that it was vicious, “I think what the Minister was saying was vicious”. Dr Yutar asked when the Minister had made his speech and where Ahmed Kathrada was staying at that time. Ahmed Kathrada said that it sometime around June, 1963, and that he had been staying at Rivonia when he prepared and typed the proposed broadcast. It was after he had drafted this document he left for Mountain View where, as Dr Yutar put it, he would “start to play white” – meaning he began to disguise himself as a white Portuguese man named Pedro. Ahmed Kathrada said that he left the typed draft at Rivonia with Walter Sisulu, who had other documents in connection with the broadcast, and did not take it with him to Mountain View. Dr Yutar asked why Ahmed Kathrada had not taken the draft to Mountain View and done the tape recording there. Ahmed Kathrada said he could have had it brought to him at Mountain View but he did not.
Dr Yutar then turned attention to the visit of Arthur Goldreich and Harold Wolpe to Mountain View on 8th July, 1963, six days after Ahmed Kathrada had moved there. Ahmed Kathrada confirmed that the arrangements made with these two visitors on this day was for himself to return to Rivonia and collect the necessary items to, thereafter, be taken to another location and make the tape recording of the broadcast. Ahmed Kathrada admitted that as far as he knew Harold Wolpe was a known and listed communist at the time of this visit but Arthur Goldreich was unknown to the police at this stage. Dr Yutar tried to suggest that the recording of Ahmed Kathrada’s speech on tape was planned to be done at Rivonia and that this plan was communicated to him by Harold Wolpe and Arthur Goldreich. It was for this purpose that Ahmed Kathrada went to Rivonia on the night of 10th July, 1963, and would not say which of his friends had driven him there.
Ahmed Kathrada maintained that he did not revise the draft speech at any stage and claimed that he had not seen it since he first left it in the possession of Walter Sisulu. Dr Yutar suggested that it was implausible that Ahmed Kathrada would not have asked to see this document on the night of the 10th in order to prepare for the recording. Ahmed Kathrada replied that Walter Sisulu had not been there on the Wednesday night. Dr Yutar immediately asked if Ahmed Kathrada and then asked for the document the following day when Walter Sisulu did arrive and Ahmed Kathrada once again replied that he had not because Walter Sisulu had only been in the Thatched Cottage for a few minutes before the police arrived. Ahmed Kathrada maintained that the police intervention made it impossible for him to see the text again, that he did not know that it had been found in the coal shed, and that he was not surprised that the document may have been stored in the coal shed.
Returning to the matter of Mountain View and the time Ahmed Kathrada spent there, Dr Yutar asked specifically what items of clothing Ahmed Kathrada had left at Mountain View. Ahmed Kathrada started to repeat the question put to him when Dr Yutar interrupted and said “You heard my question. What clothes did you leave behind at Mountain View?” Ahmed Kathrada said that he left behind a felt jacket, corduroy pants, an overcoat, a pair of shoes, and a shirt or two. DR Yutar asked where those two shirts were and Ahmed Kathrada said that he did not know. Dr Yutar also pointed out the fact that no socks or under-clothing and asked, “will you say you went barefoot?” Ahmed Kathrada said that he took his pyjamas and some underwear with him to Rivonia and, “if the police would be so kind”, they could produce them. Dr Yutar insisted that he was only interested in the clothes found at Mountain View but Ahmed Kathrada said he did not know what other clothes Dr Yutar was talking about.
Thereafter, Dr Yutar put it to Ahmed Kathrada, “By the way, yes, your oath was to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth… But when it comes to giving evidence which might implicate somebody either in this Court, or outside this Court, then you‘re not prepared to give that evidence”. Ahmed Kathrada replied “I’m honour bound not to… To my conscience, to my political colleagues, to my political organisations to which I owe loyalty”. Dr Yutar then asked “And what about being honour bound to your oath to the Almighty?” to which the witness replied “I am not telling any lies”. When Dr Yutar pushed the issue further and suggested that Ahmed Kathrada was defying God by refusing information to the police, Ahmed Kathrada responded, “Well I don’t know if the police are doing the Almighty’s work. I am not prepared to give the police anything that might implicate other people”.
Dr Yutar eventually put it to Ahmed Kathrada that he “must concede, I am unable to test your evidence” and asked him, in light of this, what the point of him given evidence from the witness box was at all? Ahmed Kathrada said that the value and truthfulness of his evidence would be decided by Judge De Wet and admitted that when he spoke of political colleagues he felt honour bound to protect he was including members of the Communist Party. When Dr Yutar asked if Ahmed Kathrada was prepared to give evidence which might implicate any members of the Communist Party, Ahmed Kathrada replied, “I am aware that I have implicated myself to a great extent. I am not prepared to implicate anybody else”. Ahmed Kathrada explained that this included members of the ANC and MK, and he added that even if he knew anything about the MK he would not tell Dr Yutar. “How am I to test your story, what you’re telling us?” exclaimed Dr Yutar causing Ahmed Kathrada to reply “I feel very sorry for you Doctor, but I am unable to help you there”. Dr Yutar said “I don’t need your sympathy Kathrada…” and eventually dropped the issue.
Ahmed Kathrada said that the state’s suggestion that his address had been used for the receipt of publications from overseas, such as issues of Assegai, was “almost laughable, my address to be used as a secret address, I have never heard of such a thing. The police are at my flat I don’t know how many times I just can’t even count anymore. Dr Yutar then said that it was not only Ahmed Kathrada’s name but his flat mate Kajee’s name which appeared in Exhibit R.21 and which the state alleged was connected to the receipt of propagandist publications from outside the Republic. Ahmed Kathrada said that since 1956 the police had known that Ahmed Kathrada’s flat was always occupied by politically active people and his address would never have been used “secretly” because it just wasn’t possible.
Dr Yutar referred to Exhibit T.25, a letter addressed by Thunder to O.R., which spoke of two booklets published and sent to an address with the name Kajee in South Africa. Ahmed Kathrada said that the address on the letter referred to a completely different building than the one in which he lived. Ahmed Kathrada claimed that he had never seen an issue of Assegai in his flat. Dr Yutar dealt with this letter in some detail before shifting his attention towards Ahmed Kathrada’s job as a printers’ representative. Ahmed Kathrada explained that his primary business was political but he made a living off of his commissions he earned from taking printing orders. Dr Yutar asked if the police had not periodically asked Ahmed Kathrada what his work was. Ahmed Kathrada said that this was not the case at all. He explained that after his second application to amend his banning orders to allow him to enter his printing offices had been banned:
I went up to the grave and saw lieutenant Coetzee of the Special Branch. He assured me that there would be no difficulty in getting this permission provided I gave him certain details of my work. I supplied those details to him in the form of memoranda and a few weeks thereafter he told me that Pretoria turned down that as well. But other than that the police had never ever asked me, in fact if they had asked me I would not have given them, to save my clients because I knew they would have gone and threatened them as well.
Dr Yutar then asked if Ahmend Kathrada knew a man named Suliman Saloojee. Ahmed Kathrada said that he knew two people by that name and asked which one Dr Yutar wanted to know about. Dr Yutar said tell me about both and Ahmed Kathrada said “…you tell me which one you want and I will decide if I want to tell you”. Dr Yutar said “You will do nothing of the sort” and repeated his question. Ahmed Kathrada the said, “I know two Suliman Saloojees and I am not prepared to tell you anything further than that. You ask me what you want to know and I will decide…” He said that both men lived in Johannesburg but would say nothing else in regard to their addresses or businesses. After much back and forth Dr Yutar asked why he would not give evidence regarding these men freely to which Ahmed Kathrada replied “I want to know what you know about them because I see the members of the Special Branch sitting here…” This made Dr Yutar laugh out loud before continuing to press Ahmed Kathrada for details.
Ahmed Kathrada said that he had printing related business dealings with both of these men and had had a drink with one of them before. Ahmed Kathrada complained that Dr Yutar’s questions were so general the above was as much as he could say. When Dr Yutar asked if they were members of the Transvaal Indian Congress Ahmed Kathrada explained that “the constitution of the Transvaal Indian Congress was that all Indians over the age of 18 resident in the Transvaal are automatically members of the Transvaal Congress”. Ahmed Kathrada said that there was not, and never had been, a fixed membership of the Transvaal Indian National Congress and all adult Indians had an opportunity to vote for the Congress leaders.
Ahmed Kathrada confirmed that a Suliman Sallojee had stayed with him in his flat for a number of years and planned to start a publishing company with him at the time, but Ahmed Kathrada did not formally register the company “African Publications”. Dr Yutar asked if Post Box 1020 had been used by African Publications and Ahmed Kathrada said that this was true and that booklets such as Castro’s Cuba, Algeria (Exhibit R.215), The Treason Trail, Angola, Congo had been printed in connection with this company and he had contributed to their content. Ahmed Kathrada said that there was “nothing sinister” about the publication of the booklet Castro’s Cuba and that “for years we have brought out publications to enlighten the people”. Dr Yutar said that this publication and others deals with the guerrilla warfare of Cuba and Ahmed Kathrada said that, although he could not recall exactly, he knew that guerrilla warfare was not the primary issue discussed in this or other booklets. Ahmed Kathrada said that the booklets were sent to the offices of the New Age newspaper across the country for distribution.
Dr Yutar then drew attention to Exhibit No.10, the pamphlet entitled June 26th which the defence had submitted during the cross-examination of Mr X, and asked Ahmed Kathrada if he had shown this document to Mr X at Rivonia. Ahmed Kathrada said that he did not show it to Mr X at Rivonia as it was his standard practice to be secretive when composing political documents. Dr Yutar suggested that Mr X must have seen the document because he gave evidence which specifically mentioned the phrase “blood bank” which appeared in the document he claimed was drafted by Govan Mbeki and thereafter typed and reneod by Ahmed Kathrada. Ahmed Kathrada stated that Mr X “definitely could not have seen me doing this particular pamphlet” and when Dr Yutar asked where else he possibly could have seen it, Ahmed Kathrada said, “My lord if I must venture an answer to that, he might have seen it while it was in possession of the state.” Dr Yutar stated, “You now suggesting that under my direction the police have stooped to such low methods as to show a witness something and then get the witness to say something false under oath.” Ahmed Kathrada complained to Judge De Wet that Dr Yutar was putting words into his mouth and insisted that his suggestion was a possibility which is precisely what Dr Yutar asked him about.
Dr Yutar then asked what exactly this proposed “Blood Bank” was to be used for. Ahmed Kathrada consulted the document in question. While Ahmed Kathrada was trying to look through the document Dr Yutar continued to argue in relation to the witness’s last suggestion. He said that there was no way the police could have known that the document had been drafted by Govan Mbeki and typed and reneoed off by Ahmed Kathrada. As such, he surmised that Ahmed Kathrada’s suggestion Mr X first saw this document in the possession of the police was “really just another attempt to besmirch the name of the police”. Ahmed Kathrada responded, “My lord it doesn’t require my giving evidence in the box to besmirch the name of the police, their own activities are enough for that.” Exhibit R.121d was an exact copy which W/O Dirker claimed to have found along with 139 copies at Rivonia and, as a stencil, at Travallyn. Ahmed Kathrada said that he had typed and stencilled the document “and that is where my work ended. I have no objection if you suggest it was going to be distributed eventually…”
Dr Yutar continued to read from Exhibit R.10 and Ahmed Kathrada said that the claim that the ANC spoke on behalf of 12 million non-whites was absolutely true and added that “if you know the conditions under which these organisations have to function 120, 000 is a very high membership”. Returning to the question of what the “Blood Bank” was and what the “deeds” which African states would contribute to this “Blood Bank” were, in aid of the National Liberation Movement in South Africa, Ahmed Kathrada said that it could mean “freedom fighters, boycotts, anything”. Dr Yutar asked what boycotters would need a blood transfer and blood bank for to which Ahmed Kathrada replied that this document was “obviously” using figurative language which could have various meanings. Ahmed Kathrada admitted that he was close with Govan Mbeki, the author of the document, but maintained that he could not give one single meaning the author of this document intended it to convey. Dr Yutar suggested that the document clearly spoke of the need for the establishment of a blood transfusion service in aid of the soldiers who would be engaged in guerrilla warfare tactics in South Africa. Ahmed Kathrada said that Dr Yutar “may be quite right”.
Dr Yutar eventually said that the document made use of very inciting language. Ahmed Kathrada said that he did not find it to be inciting. Dr Yutar then told Ahmed Kathrada that he wished to make it clear that the state would be arguing and evidencing their submission that Ahmed Kathrada was “nothing else but a communist agitator”. Dr Yutar asked if Ahmed Kathrada agreed with this to which the witness replied that he did not know what Dr Yutar meant. Dr Yutar explained that what he meant was “that you are a member of the Communist Party and that your job was is to agitate people, to make them believe that they are oppressed, and to incite them”. Ahmed Kathrada replied:
My lord, I thought we had solved this problem already. We don’t have to make any non-European believe that they are oppressed… The non-European people know that they are oppressed. They don’t need anybody to incite them.
Dr Yutar recalled that Judge De Wet had made such a suggestion to Walter Sisulu and that he too gave the same answer as Ahmed Kathrada. Judge De Wet then interrupted Dr Yutar said:
I would just like to know, for my own information, whenever you’ve got these strikes, a very large proportion of the people who are told to strike, has to be forced to strike. Judging by what one reads in the newspapers, that for every one that wants to go on strike, there are a number who want to go back to work, I but they’ve got to forcibly be kept from going to work. Isn’t that what happens?
Ahmed Kathrada answered:
That has not been our experience. In fact, the experience of 1950, taught us that it’s precisely trying to picket that provokes the police to come and shoot. So that since then, whenever such strikes were called my lord, the policy was to ask the people to stay at home peacefully, and that there be no picketing, because that would just bring in the police force.
Dr Yutar then turned attention to the stay away strike the NLM had planned for the 29th – 31st May, 1961, following the Pietermaritzburg Conference in March, 1961, and prior to the proclamation of the Republic of South Africa. He suggested that the event was “a hopeless failure” which Ahmed Kathrada strongly disagreed with. Dr Yutar then asked “And is it not a fact, in the light of what his lordship has said to you now, that a number of Bantu, countless numbers were assaulted on their way to work, and many others were scared to leave because of threats? Is that not true, yes or no”. Ahmed Kathrada explained that two weeks before these strikes he had been detained by W/O Dirker for a month in Johannesburg and had not even been involved in “agitating when the strike took place”.
Dr Yutar surmised that Ahmed Kathrada had not been at the Benoni strike and massacre, the stay away strike, or any of the acts of sabotage discussed in this trial. Ahmed Kathrada confirmed that this was true and after some time Dr Yutar returned to his reading of Exhibit R.10. At one stage Dr Yutar asked Ahmed Kathrada to confirm that he had belonged to 38 organisations from which he was subsequently banned. Ahmed Kathrada explained:
My lord I did not. That is one of the farcical things about these banning orders. I was banned from the majority of organisations which I did not even belong to. Some of whom I was opposed to.
Dr Yutar did not respond to this comment and continued with his cross-examination. Ahmed Kathrada claimed that to the best of his recollection the Communist Party was not at the Congress of the People held in Kliptown in 1955. Recalling his suggestion that Ahmed Kathrada was nothing but a communist agitator, Dr Yutar asked “Is it not true that you joined the Communist Party at the age of 13” and Ahmed Kathrada said that he had told the court this was true already. Dr Yutar then asked if it was true that the principal of the Central Indian High School – which Ahmed Kathrada had helped establish in 1955 – was a communist. Ahmed Kathrada conceded that at one stage they had a principal who was a communist, Michael Harmel. Dr Yutar said “I don’t want to embarrass anyone here” but then asked Ahmed Kathrada to concede that some of the teachers at the school had also been communists. Ahmed Kathrada replied “My lord I have made no secret of my association with these people” and added that Duma Nokwe was one of their teachers there, “and a very good one too”, but he only knew him as an ANC member and not as a communist. Dr Yutar continued to suggest that Ahmed Kathrada met the “arch revolutionary” Arthur Goldreich when at university and recalled his trip to Auschwitz.
Dr Yutar went on to say that Ahmed Kathrada had spoken at meetings of the ANC which had been attended by W/O Dirker before he was banned. He mentioned a particular meeting held in Newclaire in 1953 and asked “did you incite your hearers to ensure that the Bantu do not go and work for the farmers in the Bethal area” with the phrase “the farmers in that area take the bones of the Bantu and convert them into fertilizers for their soil”. Ahmed Kathrada admitted that he may have discussed the conditions in Bethal but said he would challenge any police notes which suggested that he had used the particular phrase suggested by Dr Yutar. Dr Yutar did not engage further with this comment.
Ahmed Kathrada admitted that he had been involved in “painting slogans on walls, protesting against the removal of the Bantu from Sophiatown” and that he had incited the people not to move to Meadowlands. Dr Yutar asked Ahmed Kathrada “Which do you prefer, Sophiatown or Meadowlands?” Ahmed Kathrada replied “I prefer to live where I would like to live, not where somebody in Parliament tells me to live”. Dr Yutar then said, “Right, but of the two places, Sophiatown with all its slums and shebeens, or those beautiful garden houses in Meadowlands? Which do you think is the better place of the two?” Ahmed Kathrada answered, “Sophiatown with its comparative freedom, than Meadowlands which has got one hundred and one restrictions, permits, where your own mother can’t come and visit you without a permit. I prefer Sophiatown…”
Dr Yutar then asked Ahmed Kathrada if he remembered the Durban riots of 1948 and Ahmed Kathrada corrected him and gave the correct date which was 1949. Dr Yutar recalled that Ahmed Kathrada had said that this was “when the Africans attacked the Indians mercilessly and you said while the police looked on… or egged them on.” “Oh please!” Responded Ahmed Kathrada and continued, “My Lord I said I saw Europeans egging Africans to attack the Indians while the police looked on. I did not try to say that that was the general picture in the Durban riots…” When Dr Yutar suggested that it was the timely intervention of the police which prevented a “bloody massacre”, Ahmed Kathrada retorted, “My lord, the Indian people who lived through those days were of the opinion that if not for the timely intervention of the marines, not the police…” Dr Yutar then asked if Ahmed Kathrada had ever been to India and if he knew of the suffering of his people there to which Ahmed Kathrada replied:
I know about the suffering of my people in this country where I was born. I don’t know anything about India… I have never been there, I have read about it. As a result of years and years of British oppression, people do suffer in India.
Dr Yutar and some other men in the court room chuckled at the last part of Ahmed Kathrada’s above statement and Judge De Wet informed Dr Yutar that he would be adjourning at this stage until 9:45am the following day.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.53/8A/56e) (Vol.53/8A/57e) (Vol.53/8A/58e) (Vol.53/8A/59e).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 28th April, 1964, (Ms.385/36/1).
File containing details about Accused Nos. 1-7: TS, Ahmed Kathrada (MS.385/31/3/6).
A M Kathrada [Acc.No.5] Examination-in-chief only – incomplete. Marked AA4. (MS.385/8).
WITS Historical Papers:
Ahmed Kathrada’s Evidence on resuming (copy) (AD1844.A24.2).
Key Words
Ahmed Kathrada, TIC, ANC, SACP, NLM, Mountain View, Harold Wolpe, May Strike, Forced Removals, Meadowlands, Communist Agitator.