Description
Dr Yutar began by explaining to the court that on Friday there had been a misunderstanding between the witness and the interpreter in the use of the terms “black mealie meal” and “back powder”. Dr Yutar suggested that the misunderstanding came about because the isiXhosa spoken in the Transvaal was not “good” in comparison to that spoken in the Eastern Cape. As such the state had arranged for an isiXhosa expert to be flown in from Port Elizabeth but he would only arrive the following day. Dr Yutar proposed to continue with his examination of John Tshingane. Mr Berrange stated that he did not necessarily agree that there had been a misunderstanding but said he would raise the matter during cross-examination.
Dr Yutar then raises one more matter before continuing his examination-in-chief. Dr Yutar asked that the accuse stand up when witnesses are asked to identify them. He made this request based on the complaint that “when [he] asks a witness to identify them, some of them have got their heads lowered and they can’t hear”. This was clearly due to the fact that John Tshingane had failed to identify Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, in the court on Friday.
An interesting moment during this day come towards the end of Lieut. Swanepoel’s examination-in-chief when the defence complained that W/O Dirker was present in the court despite being directly implicated in the evidence of Lieut. Swanepoel. Judge De Wet agreed that this was an issue and ordered that W/O Dirker be removed from the court until the conclusion of this witness’s testimony.
Following from Lieut. Swanepoel, Dr Yutar wanted to call W/O Dirker to give evidence in relation to the raid of the Mountain View property. However, before actually calling the witness Dr Yutar stated that he insisted that if the defence decided to cross-examine W/O Dirker at this stage they should do so only in relation to the subject of Mountain View and nothing else. In response to this bold suggestion by Dr Yutar, Mr Berrange said it was his right to cross-examine on a range of issues if he wanted to and the state had no authority to dictate otherwise. Seeming somewhat taken aback by this turn of events, Dr Yutar then decided not to call W/O Dirker on this day and proceeded with other witnesses.
Another unique moment on this day was after Eva Hlongwane’s examination-in-chief, when after a few minutes, Dr Yutar chuckled: “My lord, unbeknownst to me, the report that I have received is this, that some person who is certainly not authorised to do so went and told a whole batch of witnesses that they will not be required this afternoon and that they can go. And they have apparently all gone. Where they have gone to, I don’t know, and I don’t think that there is a single other witness here!”
Mr Berrange suggested that, so as not to waste time with an adjournment he would perhaps continue with his cross-examination of Lt. Swanepoel, and Judge De Wet decided “Yes that might be an idea, and then you [Dr Yutar] can ask the detective in charge of the case to try and find out what has happened to your witnesses in the meantime”. Dr Yutar laughed at Judge De Wet’s response and apologised for the hold-up, which he insisted was the first of the trial so far, and said he thought it necessary for the court to take an adjournment.
Witnesses Called
42nd State Witness: John Tshingane [Shingani, Tshingani] – Taxi Driver, Port Elizabeth. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Dr Yutar began his examination-in-chief on this day by reminding John Tshingane of the evidence he had given of transporting Mandela in his car on two occasions. Following this Dr Yutar asks John Tshingane why he could not identify Nelson Mandela in the courtroom on Friday to which John Tshingane first replied that he did not recognise him because when he had known Mandela he had “a big face and was also full of beard”. Then John Tshingane went on to say that on Friday Nelson Mandela “wasn’t sitting as he is sitting now. His face was only half visible”. When asked if he could recognise Mandela in the court on this day John Tshingane said he could and pointed him out in the dock.
Returning to the acts of sabotage discussed on Friday, John Tshingane explains that when he dropped Silas Mtongwane and the two men from the Transkei off at Framesby they walked off towards an electricity sub-station. John Tshingane went on to explain that after dropping Raymond Mhlaba, Joseph Jack and Makini Mkada near the Labour Department with the remaining materials in the boot he was then instructed to drive home and speak of this with no one. Once back at home he heard a noise like a gunshot coming from the direction of the Department of Labour. Govan Mbeki supposedly paid John Tshingane for his services on the night of 16th December, 1961, and told him that the bombings had been successful.
John Tshingane said he had transported Raymond Mhlaba to the Port Elizabeth Railway Station toward the end of 1962 and, on separate occasions, to transport Vuyisile Mini, Silas Mtongwane, Makini Mkabe, Raymond Mhlaba, and Govan Mbeki, to conferences at New Brighton, Ulundini, and Vyplaas.
Cross-examination reserved.
43rd State Witness: Detective Constable van Tonder – Fingerprint Expert.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
On 26th June, 1963, D/C van Tonder was tasked with going to Marshall Square Prison to take the fingerprints of Arthur Goldreich and Harold Wolpe. These fingerprints were them filled in forms and sent by D/C van Tonder to the Bureau of Investigation where they were received by D/Sgt Grobler.
Cross-examination reserved.
44th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Grobler – Mountain View Raid.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
D/Sgt Grobler was required to take fingerprint from the property at No.10 Terrance Road, Mountain View. D/Sgt Grobler compared the fingerprints taken off of bottles, a wine glass, and a coffee can, at Mountain View with the files given to him by D/C Van Tonder. He told the court that all item dusted for prints at Mountain View matched the fingerprints of either Arthur Goldreich or Harold Wolpe.
Further examination-in-chief is reserved so that D/Sgt Grobler could step down and establish precisely whose prints were found in each instance.
Further examination-in-chief reserved.
45th State Witness: Lieutenant Theunis Jacobus Swanepoel – Special Branch Interrogator.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Lieut. Swanepoel, along with W/O Dirker, D/Sgt Van Niekerk and Lieut. Diedricks, had gone to inspect No.10 Terrace Road, Mountain View, on 5th September, 1963, after having been given information by Bob Hepple. At the Mountain View property Lieut. Swanepoel found communist literature which had been burned on the compost heap. The portions of these documents which had not been destroyed were still legible and led him to discover they were of a communist nature. The abbreviation A.N.C. also appeared on the remains of these documents found on the compost heap.
Lieut. Swanepoel had found Mrs Kreil with her two children as well as a black female named Eva and a young black man who was identified as “a garden boy” at Mountain View when they arrived. The cottage at Mountain View was pointed out to him by Advocate Hepple who made a report to Lieut. Swanepoel about the people living in that cottage.
Lieut. Swanepoel gave evidence of certain exhibits found in the cottage, on which were found the fingerprints of Arthur Goldreich and Harold Wolpe. He also found a copy of the Star newspaper on which a drawing of a furnace had been done and claimed that Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, had told him that he had done the drawing. W/O Dirker had found three folded-up plans (Exhibits M.12, M.13, and M.14) inside a book in the cottage, which showed routes to various locations on the boundary of Basutoland, and handed them to Lieut. Swanepoel to analyse. These plans were described and submitted to the court.
In addition to the above, Lieut. Swanepoel also described items of clothing found in the cottage at Mountain View some of which, a boot with a false implant in particular, seemed to correspond with the disguises Harold Wolpe and Arthur Goldreich had worn when escaping the Republic. Lieut. Swanepoel gave evidence that upon the lapel of a coat found in the room was a ‘Mandela badge’.
On 10th September, 1963, Lieut. Swanepoel returned to the Mountain View property with D/Sgt van Zyl and W/O Nel. It was on this occasion that he noticed small pieces of burnt paper on the compost heap. Lieut. Swanepoel dug into the compost heap and found a large pile of burnt paper, some of which he identified as being well-known communistic pamphlets. In concluding his examination-in-chief Lieut. Swanepoel states that he had found many of the exhibits submitted to court on the information given to him by Bob Hepple; and that Bob Hepple had told him that he was a communist and a member of the Communist Party.
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Lieut. Swanepoel told Mr Berrange that Bob Hepple took him to the Mountain View property and pointed out the various locations that were searched but Bob Hepple did not go onto the property itself. Lieut. Swanepoel clarifies that he only found the documents on the compost heap on his second visit on the 10th September, 1964. Lieut. Swanepoel did not look at the compost heap at all on his first visit. Mr Berrange asked Lieut. Swanepoel if he had seen anything else on the compost heap aside from burnt pieces of paper to which Lieut. Swanepoel answered that he could not remember seeing anything else. Mr Berrange asks him if he had seen any charred remains of a carton or carton, as testified to in Emmy Sebone’s evidence, to which Lieut. Swanepoel said he could not recollect if there were any.
Mr Berrange suggests that the only document of a communist nature which Lieut. Swanepoel found, and which was not entirely burnt, was one issue of the African Communist, referred to as a book by Lieut. Swanepoel. Lieut. Swanepoel said that even this book was burned with only small sections still legible and Dr Yutar informed the court that it would be submitted at a later stage. In regard to the other documents found in the compost heap Lieut. Swanepoel repeated that he had seen the letters ANC on many of these documents but could not recall what was said about the ANC in these documents. Lieut. Swanepoel claimed that if these documents were produced in court he could assist the court and read from them.
Lieut. Swanepoel was the senior officer in charge of both visits to the property and it was he who gave instructions for fingerprints to be taken from certain items which were presented to the court during his examination-in-chief. He could not recall if he had instructed for fingerprints to be lifted from the maps and plans (Exhibits M.12, M.13, and M.14) but admitted that because of the coarseness of the paper it, theoretically, could have been used to lift fingerprints. Mr Berrange insisted that Lieut. Swanepoel must have realised this at the time when he ordered for the other items found inside the cottage at Mountain View to be dusted for prints. Lieut. Swanepoel told W/O Dirker to have all items found in the room examined for fingerprints. Mr Berrange explained that this was significant as both Mr and Mrs Kriel had been charged with harbouring people and if either of their fingerprints had been found on these documents it would have been damning evidence against them.
Mr Berrange asked Lieut. Swanepoel if he could tell the court the name of the book W/O Dirker had found three folded-up plans in and Lieut. Swanepoel could not recall it. W/O Dirker was put in charge of taking custody and impound all of the exhibits by Lieut. Swanepoel. Lieut. Swanepoel expected that the book from which the plans had come would have been checked for fingerprints. Mr Berrange questioned why Lieut. Swanepoel had taken absolutely no notice of the book from which plans of an escape route out of the Republic to Basutoland had been taken – seeing as these documents found in the book were considered by Lieut. Swanepoel to “have been of great importance”. No additional information could be given by Lieut. Swanepoel about the description of the book and because W/O Dirker was an experienced officer Lieut. Swanepoel did not have doubts about leaving him in charge of this aspect of the investigation.
Mr Berrange asked if the book had been seized and Lieut. Swanepoel said that he did not know because he left the investigation in the hands of W/O Dirker. Mr Berrange suggested that had the police found fingerprints on this book or the documents it contained it potentially could have pointed to the person who assisted the escape of Harold Wolpe and Arthur Goldreich. Mr Berrange asked, if these documents had been dusted for fingerprints, would it not have a mark left on the paper. Lieut. Swanepoel had to concede that there were no marks on the documents – suggesting that they were not examined for fingerprints.
Further cross-examination reserved.
44th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Grobler – Fingerprint Expert. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Having been through the exhibits presented to him by Dr Yutar earlier on this day D/Sgt Grobler was now able to identify exactly whose fingerprints were found on which items. Exhibit M.1 had the fingerprints of both Harold Wolpe and Arthur Goldreich. Exhibits M.2 and M.5 contained only the prints of Arthur Goldreich. Whilst, Exhibits M.3 and M.4 had the prints of Harold Wolpe only on them.
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Mr Berrange asks D/Sgt Grobler to look at Exhibits M.12, M.13, and M.14, and to indicate to the court whether they had been tested for fingerprints or not. D/Sgt Grobler responded that the documents had not been examined by his department at the Bureau of Investigation. D/Sgt Grobler also admitted that he had not examined articles found at Rivonia and was not sure if anyone in his department had done so either. D/Sgt Grobler was only asked to deal with articles found at Mountain View and none of the articles he examined in this regard were documents or books.
No re-examination.
46th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Van Niekerk – Mountain View Raid.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
D/Sgt Van Niekerk went to No.10 Terrace Road, Mountain View, on the 17th of September, 1963, at which time he prepared a list of the articles found at the cottage. This list was submitted to the court as Exhibit M.24. Included in this list was a tube of hair dye (chestnut brown colour) and a razor for shaping hair. Once again, these items seem to suggest that disguises were made for Harold Wolpe and Arthur Goldreich at the Mountain View cottage.
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Mr Berrange asked D/Sgt Van Niekerk if articles M1. – M5. Were at the Mountain View property when he went and created his list of articles on 12th September, 1963. D/Sgt Van Niekerk replied that he had taken note of every article which was present in the cottage on the day he was there.
Further cross-examination reserved.
45th State Witness: Lieutenant T.J. Swanepoel – Special Branch Interrogator. (Recalled).
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar continued.
Under re-examination Dr Yutar submits through Lieut. Swanepoel a number of previously mentioned articles found at Mountain View. In particular Exhibit M.25, a Mandela badge found on a coat and M.26, a drawing of a furnace on a Star newspaper, are submitted to the court.
Lieut. Swanepoel claimed that he had in fact recovered from the compost heap at Mountain View, the remains of a carton containing burnt paper which he took charge of, but these documents were not present in the court. Dr Yutar informed the court that these burnt documents were at present being used in the Kriel Trial and would be available in the Rivonia Trial the following day.
Further examination-in-chief and cross-examination reserved.
46th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Van Niekerk – Mountain View Raid. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
D/Sgt Van Niekerk explained that he had searched the Mountain View property with Lieut. Swanepoel and W/O Dirker on the 5th and 6th September, 1963. D/Sgt Van Niekerk said that all articles found on the 5th were left at the property and on the following day he returned to take an inventory. However, after further questioning he admitted that W/O Dirker had taken an overcoat, shoes, and black material away from the property on the 5th. As they were all gathered in a bundle D/Sgt Van Niekerk could not see exactly what was taken by W/O Dirker to the Security Branch Offices.
D/Sgt Van Niekerk testified that on the 5th he had noticed many books on a dressing table and in a drawer of the cottage but could not recall if he had seen them on the 6th when he returned. After a significant pause of silence D/Sgt Van Niekerk states that there were no books there on the 6th and was unsure if W/O Dirker had removed them. D/Sgt Van Niekerk also admitted that he had been shown the three plans and drawing of a furnace found by W/O Dirker but, like the books, they were not there on the 6th and must have been taken by W/O Dirker.
There were 136 articles noted in D/Sgt Van Niekerk’s inventory and he handed them all into the Auckland Park police station for safe custody. The refrigerator, said to have belonged to “the woman of the house”, was not handed in to the police. Mr Berrange says that what he was trying to find out was if any of the articles in D/Sgt Van Niekerk’s inventory had been examined for fingerprints. D/Sgt Van Niekerk explained that the fingerprint analysis by D/Sgt Grobler had happened at Mountain View on the 5th and were only removed by himself the next day. According to D/Sgt Van Niekerk, D/Sgt Grobler did not accompany them and was only called to go to the Mountain View property once the other officers had left. As such D/Sgt Van Niekerk had not actually seen D/Sgt Grobler lift fingerprints and D/Sgt Van Niekerk admitted that he had never submitted the three plans for fingerprint analysis.
No re-examination.
47th State Witness: Eva Hlongwane – House worker, Mountain View.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
Eva Hlongwane started work for the Kreils in April, 1963, when they were living at No.10 Terrace Road, Mountain View. In May, 1963, Eva Hlongwane claimed that Accused no.3, Denis Goldberg, took up residence in the cottage under the name of Don Williams. Denis Goldberg stayed in the cottage until sometime in July, 1963, and during his stay Eva Hlongwane was tasked with cleaning the cottage once a week. Eva Hlongwane said that on days when Mr Williams was not on the property to unlock the cottage and let her in to clean the arrangement was that he would leave the key in the kitchen for her to gain access. Eva Hlongwane identified the key to the cottage as being a “longish one”.
Mr Krog questioned Eva Hlongwane about Denis Goldberg’s vehicle but she insisted that she had only ever seen him walking and did not see him use other means of transport. In addition to this, she said that she had never seen Denis Goldberg receiving visitors to the cottage. The only other time she saw people stay in the cottage was after Denis Goldberg had left the property altogether. She stated that two men and one woman had come to stay at the cottage, arriving just a few days before Denis Goldberg left for the last time, and identified the photograph of Accused No.5, Ahmed Kathrada, as being one of the men who had come to stay in the cottage. Eva Hlongwane commented that at the time she had assumed that Ahmed Kathrada, with his dark glasses, moustache, and reddish hair, was in fact a Portuguese man.
Mr Krog then asked Eva Hlongwane to look at the key which was Exhibit R.26 and she described it as similar to the one which opened the cottage door at Mountain View. Mr Krog told Eva Hlongwane that the key had been found by police during the raid of Rivonia.
Eva Hlongwane testified that she had told the police about burnt papers she had seen on the compost heap under interrogation in Marshall Square. Furthermore, Mr Krog prompted Eva Hlongwane to state that the documents she had seen were burnt sometime in July, 1963, long before the police had come to the property for the first time. Mr Krog asked Eva Hlongwane to describe what she had seen when these documents were burnt in July, 1963. Eva Hlongwane said that Denis Goldberg, Ahmed Kathrada, and the unknown woman staying in the cottage, had left and only the “smaller person – not Portuguese was still there” on the evening that Mr and Mrs Kriel removed a cardboard boxes of documents from the cottage and set them alight on the compost heap.
Cross-examination reserved.
48th State Witness: Zizi Njikalane – ANC Member, Port Elizabeth.
Examination-in-chief by Mr Krog.
Zizi Njikalane was given the standard warning by Judge De Wet that he was giving evidence as an accomplice. Zizi Njikalane said he understood but asked if he could please have an interpreter who spoke isiXhosa because, he said, “I cannot go deep in English”. Jude De Wet asks Zizi Njikalane if he could try and make use of the current interpreter, and if it turned out that there was an issue of understanding, his examination would be held over until the next day. The press was also ordered not to publish this witness’s name.
Zizi Njikalane was a member of the ANC and President of the ANC Youth League from 1956 until the organisations were banned in 1960. As President of the ANC Youth League Zizi Njikalane had attended many conferences, mostly in Port Elizabeth, and in particular he was present at the 1955 Kliptown conference where the Freedom Charter was drawn up and signed. When the ANC was banned he was tasked with going to various branches of the Youth League and tell them that the organisation was to be dissolved.
Zizi Njikalane gave evidence that when the ANC was banned it continued its activities. Leaders of the organisation were in jail at the time of the State of Emergency but, shortly after the State of Emergency had ended, he was called to a meeting at the house of Accused No.7, Raymond Mhlaba. At this meeting Zizi Njikalane alleged that Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, led a discussion on a new organisational plan for the ANC which had been worked out by those of its leaders in jail.
Govan Mbeki informed the meeting that as part of this new plan, officers would not be elected by Regional or Branch Committees, but they would be appointed by a controlling body which would be known as the High Command. Regions and Branches would be given directions from, and stay in touch with, the High Command through appointed contact people. Zizi Njikalane claimed that Govan Mbeki was a member of the National Executive (or High Command, as both terms are used interchangeably by this witness).
According to Zizi Njikalane when Govan Mbeki explained this new plan to the group at this particular meeting he, and Stapleton Dube, raised issue with it on the basis that it had been drafted in jail and had not been authorised at the National level. In response to these objections Raymond Mhlaba allegedly told the group that the new plan should be tried out and Govan Mbeki told them that he had received this plan from the National Committee.
In April 1961, Accused No.1, Nelson Mandela, came to Port Elizabeth to meet with the ANC ranks in New Brighton and deal with complaints about the new plan. In particular Nelson Mandela was said to have come to deal with allegations that certain members were using threats in order to force people to accept the new organisational plan. According to Zizi Njikalane, during this meeting Nelson Mandela denounced those using threats and violence to impose the new plan on others and encouraged them to work with the new structures without fighting each other.
Thereafter, Nelson Mandela told the meeting of the proposed mass stay-at-home planned for the 29th, 30th and 31st of May, 1961, and told the group that “he is against the name of the High Command” in relation to the group of the 7 highest ranking members of the organisation based in Johannesburg. During this meeting of April, 1961, Govan Mbeki, Raymond Mhlaba, and Joseph Jack, although present with the group at Dr Pather’s house did not speak.
The next ANC meeting Zizi Njikalane mentioned was in May, 1961, however before he can give any detail of the event court was adjourned and his testimony was held over until the following day.
Further examination-in-chief carried over.
Sources
Dictablets: (Vol.50/7B/34c) (Vol.50/7B/35c) (Vol.50/7B/36c) (Vol.50/7B/37c) (Vol.50/7B/38c) (Vol.50/8A/39c) (Vol.50/8A/40c) (Vol.50/8A/41c) (Vol.50/8A/42c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 27th January, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of John Singani (Ms.385/4).
Evidence of William Petrus Grobler (Ms.385/4).
Evidence of Gerhardus Petrus Van Tonder (Ms.385/4).
Evidence of Ignatius Michael Van Niekerk (Ms.385/4).
Evidence of Zizi George Njikelani (Ms.385/4).
Evidence of Theunis Jacobus Swanepoel (Ms.385/4).
Evidence of Eva Hlongwane (Ms.385/4).
WITS Historical Papers:
F1 – F70: Evidence by: Mrs Nana Weinburg, Mr DG Williams, Lennox Smollan, JC Lankenau, Bennet Nbuyo Nashigana, Reginald Mdubi, Det. Sgt Donald Card, Emily Sebone, John Tshingana, Det. Sgt van Tonder, and Lieut. Swanepoel (AD1844.A7.3).
G1 – G105: Evidence includes that by police detectives, and other State witnesses (AD1844.A8.1).
Evidence: E. Sebone, E. Hlongwane (AD1844.A11.7).
Evidence: J. Singani (AD1844.A13.1).
Evidence: Zizi (AD1844.A13.2)
Analysis of evidence: John Singani (AD1844.A18.5).
Analysis of evidence: Det. Sgt Grobler (AD1844.A18.6).
Analysis of evidence: Lieut. Swanepoel (AD1844.A18.7).
Analysis of evidence: Sgt Van Niekerk (AD1844.A18.8).
Analysis of evidence: Eva Hlongwane (AD1844.A18.9).
Analysis of evidence: Zizi Njikelane (AD1844.A18.10).
Evaluation of evidence: Zisi Njikelane (AD1844.Ba13).
Key Words
East London, Port Elizabeth, ANC, Sabotage, Police Witnesses, Mountain View, Denis Goldberg, Nelson Mandela, Govan Mbeki, Raymond Mhlaba, Fingerprint Expert.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film,Video and Sound Archives to get full access.