Description
This day began with a continuation of Bruno Mtolo’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos and Mr Chaskalson which was very brief and concluded on the understanding that Bruno Mtolo would likely be recalled for further cross-examination at a later stage.
Thereafter, Harry Bambani was recalled for cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson. Mr Chaskalson reveals many inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by Harry Bambani in this case and the evidence about the same events which he gave in the Joe Qwabi case. In fact, the comparison and contrast of evidence given by state witnesses in different trials relating to acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare, became a key tactic of the defence by this stage of the Rivonia Trial which would be seen again in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Piet Coetzee later on this day.
After Harry Bambani, Mr Bizos conducted the cross examination of Caswell Nboxele and his evidence in regard to the Mamre Camp. This cross-examination was short in comparison to that of the state’s other key witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp, Cyril Davids. However, Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in Caswell Nboxele’s evidence than the defence had managed to in regard to Cyril Davids.
Attention then returns to the issue of recruits being sent out of the country for the purpose of being trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare with the cross-examination of Isaac Rani by Mr Bizos. Aside from challenging a few minor details of his evidence-in-chief, Mr Bizos does not challenge substance of this witness’s testimony.
The next witness to be cross-examined on this day was Essop Suliman’s employee, Piet Coetzee. As previously mentioned, in cross-examining this witness Mr Chaskalson made several comparisons with evidence Piet Coetzee had given in the Fazzie Trial about the transportation of people across the Bechuanaland border and exposed a number of inconsistencies with the evidence he had given in this trial. Notes of the defence team suggest that the reason for some of these inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence were the result of him trying to mould his answers to fit with those given by his employer, Essop Suliman.
The final witness who appeared on this day was D/Sgt du Preez, who was recalled for further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar in order for the state to produce a number of documents found at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia raid. As a handwriting expert, D/Sgt du Preez was once again called upon by Dr Yutar to link the accused with documents which the state argued were communistic, terroristic, and proof of a sinister plot to overthrow the apartheid government by means of sabotage and armed revolution. In particular, on this day, Dr Yutar focused on documents associated with Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela.
Witnesses Called
14th State Witness: Bruno Mtolo – Saboteur, Natal. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos continued; followed by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Bizos resumes his questioning regarding Bruno Mtolo’s identification of the SK Building in Orlando both by photo and in person when taken by the police during his 90 day detention period. Accused No.9, Elias Motsoaledi, was seen by Bruno Mtolo at SK Building at the time when Bruno Mtolo was already disillusioned with the liberation movement but he took many notes of the training he received because he was still doing the work of the Technical Committee. Mr Bizos tells Bruno Mtolo that the reason he was putting all these questions to him was because Elias Motsoaledi would deny that he had given Bruno Mtolo any training.
Thereafter, Mr Chaskalson raised to cross-examine the witness.
Mr Chaskalson asks Bruno Mtolo to clarify when he first met Accused No.10, Andrew Mlangeni. Bruno Mtolo claimed to have met Andrew Mlangeni at his house in Johannesburg in 1963 with Levy Siloro. Of significance in Mr Chaskalson’s cross-examination of Bruno Mtolo was his attempt to cast doubt on the claim that Andrew Mlangeni was known as Percy. Bruno Mtolo was the only state witness in this trial to testify that, in addition to Robot, Andrew Mlangeni used the name Percy. This was hugely significant as the name Percy was used by the state to link Andrew Mlangeni with Operation Mayibuye and, in particular, the Transport Officer described therein as Percy Secanous Mbatha.
The witness is released on the understanding that he may be recalled for further cross-examination. The doors to the court are opened and the public are allowed to re-join the proceedings.
21st State Witness: Harry Bambani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson leads Harry Bambani to confirm that he was recruited by Thys Shongwana to go to a school in Tanganyika and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member who warned him that if He did not go he would be seen as an enemy of the ANC. Harry Bambani also confirms that it was in Bechuanaland that he first learnt from Joe Qwabi that they were being sent for military training. Mr Chaskalson then puts it to the witness that it was correct that he did go by Kombi outside of South Africa but that he, Harry Bambani, had added to his story facts which were not true.
The first fact Mr Chaskalson argues was untrue was the fact that Harry Bambani had been recruited by Thys Shongwana and that Thys Shongwana was an ANC member. The second was that Joe Qwabi had taken him aside and told him that they were going for military training.
In substantiating these claims of dishonesty, Mr Chaskalson reminds Harry Bambani of the evidence he gave in the case in which Joe Qwabi was charged. Mr Chaskalson reads from the record of that case in which Harry Bambani had been unable to identify Thys Shongwana as the man who recruited him and that he did not know what organisation he belonged to. Harry Bambani denied this completely and Mr Chaskalson replied that he would simply produce the court record.
Since Joe Qwabi’s case Harry Bambani claimed not to have been questioned by anyone. Thereafter, Harry Bambani confirms that he was aware that other recruits had been arrested and in particular he knew of the conviction of Henry Fazzie. Harry Bambani was aware that Henry Fazzie had been sentenced to two years imprisonment for leaving the country without a passport and later was sentenced by the Supreme Court for leaving the Republic for military training and sentenced to twenty years.
Mr Chaskalson’s final question to Harry Bambani was if he recalled being asked in the Joe Qwabi case if Joe Qwabi had told him of the real purpose of their trip overseas. Harry Bambani claimed no to remember and Mr Chaskalson informed him that his answer had in fact been no, he had not been told such a thing by Joe Qwabi.
No re-examination.
23rd State Witness: Caswell Zikle Nboxele – Mamre Camper. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos
Caswell Nboxele’s cross-examination by Mr Bizos was not as extensive as that of Cyril Davids – the other key state witness who gave evidence regarding Mamre Camp – however, it was perhaps more successful for the defence. This was because, even though Caswell Nboxele gave substantially the same evidence as Cyril Davids, under cross-examination Mr Bizos was able to expose many more contradictions and improbabilities in his evidence.
Firstly, Mr Bizos argued that it was extremely improbable that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, and other lecturers at the camp would have punctuated every sentence of their lectures with the term “guerrilla warfare” and thus exposed themselves so dangerously to a group of comparative strangers. According to Caswell Nboxele’s testimony there was no security measures involved in the selection of the campers, hence a “non-political” person like himself being invited, and thus Mr Bizos argued that such a term, and other sensitive information, would have been publically announced and discussed freely at the camp.
Secondly, during cross-examination Caswell Nboxele claimed that he had first heard that they were being trained in order to fight the whites during Denis Goldberg’s lecture on First Aid. This was in contradiction with his claim during examination-in-chief that he had first heard of the military purpose of the camp from Denis Goldberg soon after the recruits had arrived at the camp. When faced with this contradiction, Caswell Nboxele said that he was confused by the way he had been questioned by Mr Bizos.
Thirdly, Mr Bizos argued that it was odd that Caswell Nboxele was unable to provide an explanation of the substance of the training he received at Mamre Camp and claimed only to know that the lectures were for “guerrilla warfare”.
Finally, Mr Bizos put it to Caswell Nboxele that he knew that he had committed an offence by being at the camp, and therefore, had a motive to give evidence which would save him from prosecution. Mr Bizos also puts it to the witness that he made no effort to leave the camp, nor to complain to Teddington Nquaby about being misled about the purpose of the camp, and he did not say anything to the police until June, 1963. In closing his cross-examination Mr Bizos puts to the witness that he had never attended the camp at Mamre and had no idea what may or may not have been discussed and done there.
No re-examination.
24th State Witness: Isaac Rani – MK Recruit. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Bizos.
The cross-examination of Isaac Rani was brief as the defence did not challenge substance of his evidence. It was clarified that the name of Joe Slovo had been given to the recruits to contact in case they were arrested and needed an attorney, not as a person they were meant to contact upon arrival in Johannesburg, as had been implied in his examination-in-chief. The other issue which was dealt with was Isaac rani’s claim that he and his group had received instructions from Oliver Tambo in Dar-es-Salaam – not that he had personally spoken with Oliver Tambo at any stage.
No re-examination.
22nd State Witness: Piet Coetzee – Combi/Kombi Driver. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Chaskalson.
Mr Chaskalson, unlike Dr Yutar, chose to question this witness in English. The first point pursued by Mr Chaskalson was Piet Coetzee’s claim that Walter Sisulu had attended the main Conference at Lobatse. Mr Chaskalson put it to Piet Coetzee that Walter Sisulu was actually under house arrest at the time of this particular conference and would prove in his evidence that he had not attended. In response to this information Piet Coetzee maintained that his evidence was that Walter Sisulu, whether under house arrest or not, did attend the conference.
The majority of Piet Coetzee’s cross-examination concerned contradictions in the evidence he gave in the Rivonia Trial and that he gave in other trials. For example it was shown by Mr Chaskalson that in the Fazzie Trial Piet Coetzee gave evidence to the effect that Nelson Mandela was in attendance at a conference at Lobatse during a time when Nelson Mandela was in fact in jail. During his cross-examination in the Rivonia Trial Piet Coetzee denied having ever made this claim in the Fazzie Trial.
Furthermore, Piet Coetzee’s dating of the two conferences in Lobatse in his evidence for the Fazzie case and his evidence for the Rivonia case were very different. Mr Chaskalson put it to the court that the inconsistencies in Piet Coetzee’s evidence in previous cases “was presumably led to corroborate Sulliman who said that Sisulu engaged him to take 37 recruits to the border, but not in 1963”. Finally, Mr Chaskalson argued that Piet Coetzee’s identification of people was completely unreliable and it is highly unlikely that people, such as Alfred Jantjies and Harry Bambani, would have ever given him their real names as recruits – especially as Harry Bambani was never even transported in Piet Coetzee’s Kombi.
No re-examination.
18th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Petrus Johannes du Preez – Handwriting Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
The first document dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R.11, headed “Target”. This 11 page document, read aloud in part by Dr Yutar to the court, contained detailed instructions regarding military training and warfare as well as a number of illustrations, diagrams, and sketches of various attacking and defensive military positions.
The second document handed in was, Exhibit R.12, which was labelled “Gaol escape plan”. It was a sketch of the fort in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned with written details of the layout of the building and the stationing of guards within. The document clearly indicated an attempt to lay plans for a break-out of political prisoners as well as a series of suggested instructions from Mandela for the structure and members of the Regional Command in Natal.
The third document handed in was, Exhibit R. 13, headed “Pafmecsa” (Pan African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa). The document was a report on Nelson Mandela’s trip to African states in 1962 and his notes on the Pafmesca Conference from the perspective of the ANC. O R Tambo lead for the ANC delegation of six and was appointed to the Coordinated Freedom Council. One of the chief concerns raised in this document was the inclusion of white members in the ANC and the perception from other African organisations that the ANC was a Communist dominated movement. These issues appear to have been raised specifically by Kenneth Kaunda during the Conference. Conversely, the document also dealt with the issues the ANC experienced in regard to socialist countries. The delegate from Communist China on the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee rejected the application to send funds to the ANC on the grounds that “the ANC is a stooge organisation that had sold out to whites”.
This third document was by far the longest and most interesting of the three exhibits found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm, which were discussed on this day. In addition to the issues discussed above it provides even more unique insights into the perception of the ANC – its policies, membership, and leaders – by other African states and organisations. For example it is noted here by Nelson Mandela that Chief Albert Luthuli’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize had created the impression for some that “Luthuli had been bought by the West” and his book suggests that he is a stooge of the whites. “All these things”, wrote Nelson Mandela, “made it appear as if the PAC is the only hope for the African people”.
Nelson Mandela argued that to be called a stooge immediately discredited the ANC and drove those outside South Africa to support the PAC because to be called a racialist, or anti-white, on the African continent at this time would not infringe upon one’s credibility. Despite all of these issues and concerns described by Nelson Mandela, amongst others, he concludes the report by saying, “no cause for pessimism, my moral is high”.
These three documents were all found in Room 4 at Liliesleaf Farm during the Rivonia Raid and all were identified by D/Sgt du Preez as being in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela. The next documents dealt with by Dr Yutar were those found in the Coal shed at Liliesleaf Farm.
The first of these documents dealt with by Dr Yutar was Exhibit R. 14, headed “Policy of U.A.R.”, and identified as being in Nelson Mandela’s handwriting. Significant points noted by Nelson Mandela in this document concern the expansion of ANC offices and training camps in Bechuanaland, Tanganyika, and other African states.
The second document found in the Coal shed handed in was Exhibit R. 15, a foolscap exercise book of 26 pages headed “Guerrillas never wage positional warfare”. This document, like Exhibit R. 11, was an in-depth set of instructions regarding tactics of guerrilla warfare. It contained insights from Soviet Union and Chinese guerrilla warfare experiences. Importantly, it also, on the last page, gave the details of the zoning of “Bantu locations on the Witwatersrand” into four zones to be under the organisational control of the ANC as leaders of the liberation struggles in the Republic. Like the other exhibits handed in on this day, Exhibit R. 15 is specifically identified as having been in the handwriting of Nelson Mandela.
The next two exhibits dealt with by Dr Yutar were Exhibits R. 16 and R. 17. The first of these, Exhibit R. 16, was a 94 page quarto sized exercise book headed “MAROC” and dated “18/03”. It was a supplement to Nelson Mandela’s dairy and, like his dairy, it detailed certain events which took place during his trip to African states during 1962. In particular, Exhibit R. 16 recorded consultations Nelson Mandela had with certain Algerian officers and others in North Africa during March, 1962. Central to these consultations was Nelson Mandela’s learning of the successes and challenges faced by the ALN (National Liberation Army) in fighting French colonial forces as the armed wing of the FLN (Front de Liberation National).
On page 7 of Exhibit R. 16, the author provides an explanation of the relationship between sabotage and guerrilla operations, which is quoted as follows:
“Basically sabotage seeks to destroy the enemy’s economy; while guerrilla operations are intended to sap the strength of the enemy’s troops. Some commentators regard sabotage as an invaluable arm of guerrilla warfare. Sabotage is frequently used for the purpose of preventing the enemy from extending his operations and, more particularly, from advancing close to the base of the guerrillas. In Algeria the French built more roads during the seven years of Revolution than they did during the last 130 years because of the extensive destruction of roads by ALN units through acts of sabotage…
The explanation continues and is not quoted in full here, however, the above extract indicates precisely the point Dr Yutar wanted to make with this exhibit – that the acts of sabotage the accused were tied to in this case also linked them directly to an international plot to overthrow the government of the Republic of South Africa by means of guerrilla warfare. The document also refers extensively to the role of women in acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare in Algeria.
Before moving on to Exhibit R. 17, Nelson Mandela’s diary, court is adjourned until the following morning.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/3A/140b) (Vol.50/3A/141b) (Vol.50/3A/142b) (Vol.50/3A/143b) (Vol.50/3A/144b) (Vol.50/3B/145b) (Vol.50/3B/146b) (Vol.50/3B/147b) (Vol.50/3B/148b) (Vol.50/3B/149b).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17 January, 1964, (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence by Harry Bambani (MS.385/2)
Evidence by P A Coetzee (MS.385/2).
Evidence by I Rani (MS.385/2).
Evidence by C Z Mboxele, cross-examination (MS.385/4).
Evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/2).
Continuation of evidence by Bruno Mtolo (MS.385/3).
Extracts of evidence by Bruno Mtolo, cross-examination (MS.385/5).
MORE FROM EXHIBITS
WITS Historical Papers:
Memorandum re specific acts of sabotage – Durban, handwritten, (AD1844.Ba10.14).
Bruno Mtolo background and personality (AD1844.Ba10.7).
Bruno’s Johannesburg trips (AD1844.Ba10.9) NOT ACCESSABLE ONLINE.
Bruno notes on disillusionment (AD1844.Ba10.6).
Memorandum on evidence by Mtolo, extracts cut out of pages (AD1844.Ba10.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Notes on Mtolo (AD1844.Ba10.1)
Notes by Bernstein (AD1844.Ba10.11).
Kathrada’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.12).
Goldberg’s notes (AD1844.Ba10.13).
Bruno Mtolo’s Evidence (AD1844.A16).
Examination in Chief and Cross Examination (AD1844.Ba.10.16).
E1 – E66: Evidence by: Harry Mbambani, Caswell Zikle Nboxele, Piet Coetzee, P J du Preez, Abel Mthembu, Mrs Batcheldar, Herbert Hodes, Theodorus Palos, Desmond Todd, Fredrick Milbourne, Leon Ruff, Franz Marabec, and Mrs Anita Levanos (AD188.A7.2).
Evaluation of evidence: Caswell Nboxele (AD1844.Ba11).
Evaluation of evidence: Isaac Rani (AD1844.Ba16).
Evaluation of evidence: Piet Adam Coetzee (AD1844.Ba1).
Key Words
Key State Witnesses, Bruno Mtolo, Harry Bambani, Caswell Nboxele, Communism, ANC, Disillusionment, Leadership, Nelson Mandela, MK, Regional Command, Mamre Camp, Guerrilla Warfare.