Description
Dr Yutar opens proceedings on this day by advising Judge De Wet that, as a result of information received by the prosecution, an urgent application had been made by the state on Saturday 15th February, 1964, in the Chambers of Judge P. Cillie, to commit Accused No.8, James Kantor, to jail and withdraw his bail. After hearing certain evidence Judge P. Cillie granted the state’s application. Dr Yutar went on to say that, “In fairness to No.8, I don’t wish to say anything more at this stage”, but explained that representations had been made to him by James Kantor’s council and that he would be meeting with Mr Coaker the next day “with a view to seeing if we can overcome the difficulties which this matter has engendered”. Dr Yutar went on to say that he hoped to have the issue sorted out by Friday, at which time he planned to conclude the state’s case.
Thereafter the state began to call its witnesses.
Before calling Ronald First to the witness stand Dr Yutar asked Judge De Wet to direct the press not to publish his name or give any indication of who he is, as he was “obviously in a most embarrassing situation” as the son of Julius First.
Mr Berrange asked for further cross-examination of Ronald First to be reserved as it was still to be seen if anything sinister would be inferred from the state’s introduction of the organisations, Christian Action and Defence and Aid Fund, into the trial during Ronald First’s examination-in-chief.
Following the cross-examination of W/O Kennedy Mr Berrange addressed the court and said, “My Lord, I was anticipating, by arrangement with my learned friend, that the witnesses who were standing over would be examined by me this afternoon, but I understand from my learned friend that he released them because he thought I was going to be much longer than I was with Mr Kennedy. My learned friend has not leant yet that I am not as long as my reputation says I am.” Judge De Wet chuckled heartily at this last comment by Mr Berrange and responded, “Well, well, if you prefer it I will adjourn now”. Continuing the joke Mr Berrange said, “I wonder if Your Lordship would have pity on me” and court was adjourned until the following day.
Witnesses Called
134th State Witness: Sergeant Dirk Francious van Zyl – SAP, Cape Town.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Sgt van Zyl worked in the uniform section of the SAP, stationed in Rondebosch, Cape Town. On 4th December, 1962, Sgt van Zyl had been on moto patrol on the Main Road in Rondebosch when he turned his car into an open piece of land next to the road. In his car’s headlights he saw a European man on a motorbike pull out from behind a tree whilst, at the same time, a black man started to walk away in the opposite direction. Sgt van Zyl stopped the white man and a coloured Constable he was with when and got the black man and brought him back to the car.
Sgt van Zyl asked for an explanation of the circumstance and the white man, who gave his name as Denis Goldberg, said “I can’t afford to say anything”. The black man was Looksmart, and Sgt van Zyl said his first name was “very curios” and he would try to recall it at a later stage. Furthermore, Sgt van Zyl said that he could not with certainty point out Denis Goldberg in the courtroom. Sgt van Zyl did recall, however, that when he was given the name Denis Goldberg he told him that “it rings a bell” to which Denis Goldberg responded “what kind of bell?” but Sgt van Zyl could not remember where he had heard it before. After having taken the two men’s names and addresses Sgt van Zyl let them go and Looksmart began to walk across the road.
According to Sgt van Zyl, Denis Goldberg then asked the two police men “can I go speak to my friend now?” to which Sgt van Zyl responded, “Please yourself”. Denis Goldberg and Looksmart then conversed for a while aross the road and out of earshot from the police.
Sgt van Zyl testified that there had been an explosion in Claremont the previous evening. In concluding his examination-in-chief Sgt van Zyl clarified that he was talking about events in 1962, and not 1963 as he had mistakenly suggested at the outset, and that he recognised the picture of Denis Goldberg on the top of page three, Exhibit D.
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Mr Berrange asked Sgt van Zyl if he had made any written notes of this incident and the information he took from the two men at the time. Sgt van Zyl said that he had taken notes in his pocket book which was at the Rondebosch Police Station. In addition to their names and addresses he had also taken down the licence plate number of the motorbike and made a note to make a report to the Security Branch. Sgt van Zyl made a written statement the following day concerning the conversation between Denis Goldberg and Looksmart. When Mr Berrange asked Sgt van Zyl why he did not note the points of the conversation of in his pocket book, Sgt van Zyl explained that orders require that material things are noted in officers’ pocket books and he did not regard it as important at the time. Sgt van Zyl said that now he believed the conversation had been of material importance.
Sgt van Zyl recalled that the name Looksmart had given him was Solwandla. Mr Berrange highlighted the fact that Sgt van Zyl appeared to have a good memory of this event which was curious considering that he first said that it had happened three months ago and then corrected himself to say it had happened 15 months ago. Mr Berrange then said that it was also curious that Sgt van Zyl had pages through the whole of Exhibit D before identifying page three as the one with the photograph of Denis Goldberg. Sgt van Zyl said that he had done that because he was asked by Dr Yutar to look through the whole book. Furthermore, Sgt van Zyl said that having now seen the photograph of Denis Goldberg he could confirm that he was in the courtroom.
Further cross-examination reserved.
135th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Johannes Petrus Francious van Wyk – Security Branch, Cape Town.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
D/Sgt van Wyk was first questioned by Dr Yutar in regard to the events which took place on 5th December, 1962. On that evening D/Sgt van Wyk witnessed Accused No.3, Denis Goldberg, hand something over to Looksmart Solwandla from the window of his car and drive away. D/Sgt van Wyk stopped and searched Looksmart Solwandla a short while later and found in his pocket a piece of paper with a sketch of certain streets and a railway signal box marked with a star. Looksmart Solwandla claimed that he did not know what the contents or purpose of the sketch were and then kept completely silent, refusing to admit or deny that he had received the paper from Denis Goldberg.
Looksmart Solwandla was detained for a number of hours and then released once the police had examined the piece of paper. D/Sgt van Wyk stated that he did not know where that paper was now.
D/Sgt van Wyk stated that he had known Denis Goldberg through his prolific attendance of political meetings held by organisations such as the Congress Alliance, SACPC and SACTU. Although D/Sgt van Wyk never saw Denis Goldberg address these meetings he did keep observation on his house in Claremont. D/Sgt van Wyk said that on weekends Denis Goldberg would often hold racially mixed parties with the following list of people who, D/Sgt van Wyk claimed, were regular attendees:
Jack Tarshish, Brian Bunting, Sonia Bunting, George Peake, Ethel Tarshish, Alf van der Berg, Sylvia Aneame, Barney Desai, Reginald September, Hettie September, Gillian Jewell, Sedrick Levy, Looksmart Solwandla, and Solly Malindi who was an old ANC members.
Thereafter, D/Sgt van Wyk gave evidence of the following acts of sabotage which had been committed in Cape Town, listed as Items in Annexure B:
Item No.78: On 14th October, 1962, an incendiary bomb was thrown through a window of a store room of the Administrative Building in Nyanga Location.
Item No.83: D/Sgt van Wyk said “I can just remember the incident. I did not go there. I only have knowledge from what I have read in the docket.
Item No.100: On 15th November, 1962, a telephone cable was sawn off in Gardens, Cape Town.
Items No.105 and 106: On 27th November, 1962, two class rooms in Vasco High School were destroyed by fire and two others badly damaged. On the same night paraffin was poured against a door and set alight at the Vasco Preparatory School.
Item No.108: On 28th November, 1962, a telephone cable was sawn off in Salt River, Cape Town.
Item No.116: On 3rd December, 1962, a home-made bomb exploded and destroyed a telephone booth in Newlands, Cape Town.
Item No.121: On 8th December, 1962, a telephone cable on Shapel Street was cut off.
Item No.81: On 15th October, 1962, an incendiary bomb was thrown through a window of the Post Offcie in Langa Location, but had not been exploded.
Item No.109: On 28th November, 1962, a telephone cable was sawn off at Salt River, Cape Town.
In closing his examination-in-chief D/Sgt van Wyk clarified to the court that the Schools at Vasco were non-European government run institutions.
Cross-examination reserved.
134th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Dirk Francious van Zyl – SAP, Cape Town. (Recalled).
Further cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Under further cross-examination D/Sgt van Zyl claimed that he had made a statement about the conversation between Denis Goldberg and Looksmart Solwandla about three days after the occurrence. D/Sgt van Zyl claimed that the last time he saw his statement was in Rondebosch and that he had not been given the opportunity to refresh his memory from it. Mr Berrange then asked how it was that D/Sgt van Zyl could still remember the exact words used in conversation with Denis Goldberg over 15 month after the event. D/Sgt van Zyl said that, despite having made the mistake of dates during the morning’s proceedings, he was certain that, even without refreshing his mind from his statement, he could recall the exact words used by Denis Goldberg.
Mr Berrange suggested that when D/Sgt van Zyl was paging through Exhibit D, he had seen Denis Goldberg’s name listed in the index, and as a result of that he had identified photograph No.3 and Accused No.3 sitting in the courtroom. D/Sgt van Zyl said that he did not look at the first page properly and did not read the index. Mr Berrange told D/Sgt van Wyk that he had “a fabulous memory” considering that he could remember exactly that Denis Goldberg had said “I can’t afford to say anything” and not “I can’t afford to tell anything”.
Re-examination by Dr Yutar.
D/Sgt van Zyl claimed, once again, that he had not read the index of Exhibit D.
135th State Witness: Detective Sergeant Johannes Petrus Francious van Wyk – SAP, Cape Town. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
D/Sgt van Wyk told Mr Berrange that he had not made a statement nor had he taken any note in his pocket book concerning the night of 5th December, 1962. He went on to explain that after picking up Looksmart Solwandla he took him to the place marked with a star on the sketch before taking him to the office of the Security Brach where he was questioned and released. D/Sgt Laubscher had been with D/Sgt van Wyk when he first stopped Looksmart Solwandla.
D/Sgt van Wyk told Mr Berrange that at the time he did not think it was necessary to take notes despite the fact that he admitted it was normal practice for him to do so. D/Sgt van Wyk said that there was a chance that he had made a note on the file cover of either Looksmart Solwandla or Denis Goldberg – depending on whose file the sketch had been placed in at the office of the Security Branch.
Under cross-examination D/Sgt van Wyk gave many more details concerning what he had seen and done on the night in question and Mr Berrange asked why it was that he did not recall any of these details during his examination-in-chief. D/Sgt van Wyk replied that he had not been asked for such details by Dr Yutar and insisted that he sis not know what evidence he was going to be asked to give prior to his leaving Cape Town for the trial and that is why he did not bring his notes with him. D/Sgt van Wyk said that D/Sgt Dirker had sent him a telex asking him to come and give evidence. Mr Berrange asked how it was that anyone in Johannesburg or Pretoria had known about D/Sgt van Wyk’s evidence in this regard (for which there were no known notes or statement) in order to ask him to come and present it in court. D/Sgt van Wyk eventually submitted the answer that he did not know how this was possible.
Mr Berrange put it to Mr Berrange D/Sgt van Wyk that it was well known that every Sunday Denis Goldberg hosted a braai for his friends at his house. D/Sgt van Wyk said that he was not aware of braaivleis being cooked at these parties. Mr Berrange then asked how D/Sgt van Wyk went about taking the names of the people who attended parties at Denis Goldberg’s house. D/Sgt van Wyk replied, “I don’t like to advertise methods of investigation. I would like to refuse to give this evidence. I don’t want to disclose methods”. All D/Sgt van Wyk would say was that these gatherings at Denis Goldberg’s house were parties and that the police could not stop people from going to social gatherings.
In closing D/Sgt van Wyk admitted that the evidence he had given of Barney Desai’s visit to Durban had been based on what was told to him by others. Mr Berrange informed the court that he had no further questions, save for the fact that the defence wanted this sketch plan to be produced in court. Judge De Wet commented that the evidence of this witness may not be admissible if the plan is not produced.
No re-examination.
45th State Witness: Lieutenant Theunis Jacobus Swanepoel – Special Branch Interrogator. (Recalled).
Further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Lieut. Swanepoel began his further examination-in-chief by giving evidence concerning the sabotage act (Item No.19 of Annexure B) which resulted in the death of Petrus Molefe and for which Benjamin Ramotse. On 1st May, 1963, Lieut. Swanepoel searched the house of Petrus Molefe in the presence of his wife Mana Molefe. In the house Lieut. Swanepoel found what he though was a suspicious mealie meal tin, ANC membership cards for Petrus and Mana Molefe, an ANC Dube Branch stamp and communistic literature. Lieut. Swanepoel confiscated these items and handed them over to D/Sgt Van Niekerk and made a statement to him. Lieut. Swanepoel had not been able to trace the documents he deemed “communistic Literature” after having handed them in to D/Sgt Van Niekerk in Johannesburg.
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Under cross-examination Lieut. Swanepoel first confirmed for Mr Berrange that the “communistic literature” he found was not a series of documents but approximately 10 books. One of those books was authored by Mao Tse Tsung whom Lieut. Swanepoel referred to as the Communist Dictator of China. Lieut. Swanepoel claimed that he did not read the book but merely took notice of it.
The whole of Lieut. Swanepoel’s cross-examination at this stage concerned the books which he claimed were of a communistic nature. He claimed that all the books found in Petrus Molefe’s house seemed to have originated from China. Mr Berrange asked Lieut. Swanepoel if he had ever been to the Vanguard Bookstore in Johannesburg, where anyone could buy a number of books there written of, by, or for, Mao Tse Tsung. Lieut. Swanepoel said that as far as he was concerned the book by Mao Tse Tsung would not have been allowed to be sold at any bookstore in Johannesburg. Mr Berrange asked why not and Lieut. Swanepoel said that he had paged through the book and seen that it promoted revolution and guerrilla warfare and that is how he knew it would not have been sold openly in any store in South Africa.
No re-examination.
136th State Witness: Ronald Martin First – Accountant and son of Julius First.
Examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Ronald First told the court that he was a chartered accountant and the son of Julius First. Ronald First told Dr Yutar that his father was “a man of means” and that he had recently seen him in London where he was currently staying. Dr Yutar put it to Ronald First that former state witness Stanley Cohen had given evidence of a loan he had given to Julius First for R14, 000 and asked why his father would have needed such a large amount of money. Ronald First replied that, as far as he knew, his father was never in need of such an amount of money.
Ronald First admitted that he had some knowledge of his father’s business affairs and that the name of his company Ruron (Pty) Ltd was an amalgamation of the names Ruth and Ronald, being his and his sisters first names. Ronald First stated that his sister, Ruth First, lived with her husband and that he had met Jack and Rica Hodgson there. Aside from these social meetings Ronald First claimed to have had no dealing with Jack Hodgson at all. In addition to the Hodgson’s Ronald First also told the court that Lionel and Hilda Bernstein, Ivan Schembrucker and Harold Wolpe were visitors to his sister Ruth and Joe Slovo’s house.
Ivan Schembrucker had worked for the New Age newspaper and Ronald First had been co-signatory to a bail fund with Ivan Schembrucker, but he had had no dealings with him. In addition to this he had had dealings with Harold Wolpe aside from on social occasions at his sister’s house. His dealings with Harold Wolpe had been connection with the collection of certain Hire Purchase accounts. Dr Yutar then turned attention to the Defence and Aid Fund for which Ronald First had done the books.
According to Ronald First the Defence and Aid Fund was run by a committee and that Alex Hepple – father of Bob Hepple – was the chairman of the Fund. Its purpose had been to provide relief after the Sharpeville Massacre, to provide bail in certain cases associated with political work. Examples of cases were of protests against pass laws and forced evictions. Dr Yutar asked if the Fund had ever been used to provide money to members of banned organisations such as the ANC and the SACP, to which Ronald First responded that he believed it probably had been. Ronald First supplemented this answer with the comment, “I am not quite sure, Dr Yutar, I did not have any dealings with the work that was done, apart from the actual bookkeeping”.
Money for the Fund was collected from donors both in South Africa and overseas. Christian Action was a main donor of money from overseas and Canon Collins was in charge of these donations. The Bail Fund was conducted by Defence and Aid at one stage but the Fund was subsequently taken over by Ivan Schembrucker and Rica Hodgson. Ronald First said that he only knew of the initial sum of money given to them by Defence and Aid but had no other knowledge with their books.
Dr Yutar then discussed the various shares held by members of the First family in the company Ruron (Pty) Ltd created by his father for taxation purposes. According to Ronald First his father did no business through this company and it was a pure finance company with dividend income and interest charges. The collection of certain Hire Purchase accounts, referred to earlier in connection with Harold Wolpe, were also at a stage put through Ruron – that was the sale of sewing machines and the collection of money. Dr Yutar told Ronald First that evidence had been give of money paid to Ruron from an overseas account. Ronald First recalled money which had come from a company called Co-Op Wholesalers but he had never spoken to his father about this. Ronald First stated that he was by no means aware of all the financial transactions of the company as he had nothing to do with the conduct of Ruron.
Ronald First claimed that his father had indicated to him that the Ruron account was a convenient source for the temporary placement of money which would not stay in the account for very long. Julius First had also opened a savings account in Ronald First’s name at A.B.S. which he was told was also to be used for temporary placement of money. Ronald First told the court that he did not want to query what his father did and took no notice of his financial transactions. He maintained that at the time he had no knowledge at all and it was only in light of subsequent events that he came to the presumption that the accounts were probably used for political work.
Ronald First stated that his father was involved “in left wing politics” and, as a final point, was asked by Dr Yutar to identify Exhibit T. 15, which he said was a letterhead used by the Defence and Aid.
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Under cross-examination Ronald First was led to state that the Defence and Aid functioned openly and legally with many prominent members of South African society serving on its board. Mr Berrange stressed, with Ronald First’s support, that many of these board members were not communist and some were even anti-communist. Thereafter, he clarified that Alex Hepple was formerly an M.P. of the state representing labour interests. In closing Ronald First said that the donations to the Defence and Aid Fund were hugely increased after Sharpeville and that they received money from all types of individuals both domestically and overseas.
Further cross-examination reserved.
131st State Witness: Warrant Officer Daniel Johannes Huggett – SAP, Cape Town. (Recalled).
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
At the outset Mr Berrange informed W/O Huggett that he did not, at this stage, think that there was not much in his evidence that he would contest, of any material nature. He would, however, deal with “the juxtaposition in which [W/O Huggett] placed certain instances in order to give a certain cause and effect”. Mr Berrange clarified that, during his examination-in-chief, W/O Huggett gave evidence of 25 acts of sabotage and immediately thereafter then told the court that George Peake, J. Francis, Sedrick Levy, and Jack Tarshish, had been arrested. W/O Huggett stated that this had been a result of the way the questions had been put to him by Dr Yutar, to which Mr Berrange responded “I know, that’s what I mean by the juxtaposition of certain things in order to create a certain atmosphere of cause and effect”.
In the cross-examination of W/O Hugget, it was established that the slogan painting which had taken place shortly before the acts of sabotage were committed had had nothing to do with the promotion of sabotage. Thereafter, Mr Berrange turned his attention to the Langa riots also mentioned by W/O Huggett during his examination-in-chief. W/O Huggett attributed the Langa riots to the PAC which he said had a strong following in the Western Cape. Philip Skosana, leader of the PAC, had lead the march in Langa in March or April of 1960. W/O Huggett had not seen the purported 30, 000 person march take place; he did, however, witness many speakers at meetings who referred to Western Cape removal schemes, conditions in migrant labour hotels, amongst other issues.
Mr Berrange established that, aside from the inferences which could be drawn from the fact of sabotage, there was no direct evidence as to who committed the acts of sabotage testified to by W/O Huggett. In regard to Item No.30, W/O Huggett said that he did not take part in the investigations and could not deny that this was a spontaneous act committed by two people. In regard to Item No.39, W/O Huggett had not arrested George Peake himself and Mr Berrange suggested that there was nothing to link George Peake with the accused other than the fact that he had addressed meetings in favour of the National Convention. In regard to Item No.144, W/O Huggett conceded that J. Francis, the man convicted, made a confession that he had a grudge against his employers and it was for that reason that he set fire to the place.
Mr Berrange then asked about the occasion on which W/O Huggett alleged that he and Lieut. Sauerman had investigated an explosion in the garden of Denis Goldberg’s house (Item No.131). W/O Huggett said that although he could not recall it, it was possible that Denis Goldberg had spoken first with Lieut. Sauerman and had had a quarrel with him. Mr Berrange continued and informed the court that Denis Goldberg would say that it was after this altercation that W/O Huggett took written statements from himself and his wife. Denis Goldberg claimed that W/O Huggett then began to cross-examine him in regard to the statement he had made. W/O Huggett said that if he had questioned him it would have been to merely clear up things. Mr Berrange continued, saying that Denis Goldberg had told W/O Huggett at this stage “that he refused to be cross-examined by you” or words to that effect. W/O Huggett said that this did not happen and he treated Denis Goldberg as a complainant and not as a political figure and that Denis Goldberg had simple told him that he refused to answer certain questions.
W/O Huggett told the court that at the time of this occasion he was not aware that Dennis Goldberg was under observation by the Special Branch and it was only afterwards that he was tasked with observing Denis Goldberg.
In closing W/O Huggett confirmed that he had not been present at the Langa riot and everything he knew happened there had been told to him by others. W/O Huggett’s only first-hand knowledge was of a burnt out wagon he personally saw there.
No re-examination.
130th State Witness: Warrant Officer James Hunter Kennedy – The Grays. (Recalled).
Further examination-in-chief by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar informed the court that he wished to put just two additional points to this witness, both of which were corrections from his previous examination, before his cross-examination. Dr Yutar asked W/O Kennedy to recall evidence he gave of the names of certain people who attended certain meetings which he said had appeared on Exhibit R.79. W/O Kennedy had mistakenly indicated that the name Omar appeared on that list, when in fact the name which was there was Ben Turok.
The second point raised by Dr Yutar concerned Item No.71. On 7th October, 1962, the base of an electric pylon was damaged by a dynamite explosion in Lyndhurst-Bramley (Alexandra), Johannesburg. During his initial examination-in-chief W/O Kennedy claimed to have noticed a slogan painted on a wall in the vicinity with the words “Free Mandela”. On this day however, W/O Kennedy said that the slogan did not say “Free Mandela”. Instead he said that the painted slogan had read, “Vorster we kill now – African police it is time to decide – Power to the People – and a sentence in a Bantu language that [W/O Kennedy] could not make out”.
Cross-examination by Mr Berrange.
Mr Berrange asked W/O Kennedy when and where exactly he had first seen the slogan written on the wall in Selbourne Street. W/O Kennedy replied that he had seen it for the first time on the morning of his inspection on 8th October, 1962, about half a mile away from the scene of the explosion. Mr Berrange then asked W/O Kennedy if he was that the organisation called the PAC had taken credit for the destruction of pylons. W/O Kennedy said that knew of the PAC but was not aware, even from newspapers that they had taken credit for the destruction of electric pylons. W/O Kennedy added that he was aware that the PAC had criticised certain acts of the ANC because the PAC wanted to take over the government by means of violence. Mr Berrange suggested that this police of violence was also that of the National Committee of Liberation but W/O Kennedy said that the actions of the NCL were “so wide that [he] could not describe them”. As he was one of the investigating officers of the Security Branch W/O Kennedy said that he did not do much investigating into the organisation and its works expect where an act had been reported.
Mr Berrange, did not challenge W/O Kennedy and added that he had made a mistake earlier because it was in fact the NCL who had taken credit for the destruction of power pylons on the East Rand and not the PAC. Mr Berrange then asked in W/O Kennedy had any information about acts of sabotage committed by the NCL. W/O Kennedy responded that the first information that was received was a pamphlet published by the National Liberation Movement which spoke of Umkhonto we Sizwe. Mr Berrange said that he was not talking about the NLM but the organisation that called itself the National Committee of Liberation. W/O Kennedy said that it was not a banned organisation and he knew very little about it.
Thereafter Mr Berrange turns his attention to W/O Kennedy’s role in the raid of Liliesleaf Farm on 11th July, 1963. W/O Kennedy stated that he was certain that the man he had seen disappearing out the window of the Thatched Cottage was a “Non-European” whose hair was dark and slightly red. W/O Kennedy stated that if it was one of the accused, it must have been either Accused No.2, Walter Sisulu, or No.5, Ahmed Kathrada.
W/O Kennedy described the clothes that were worn by Ahmed Kathrada and Raymond Mhlaba on the day of the raid. When W/O Kennedy was discussing the documents found on Raymond Mhlaba, Dr Yutar informed the court that the documents found during the Rivonia raid which were not being used by the State were available to the defence council at Grays. Those documents were all placed in marked envelopes detailing exactly where they were found during the raid. Mr Berrange said that he had heard much about these documents but that he was still waiting for them to be produced to the defence as they were of great importance for this trail. Judge De Wet said that the state was not responsible for producing the documents and it was up to the defence to seek them out at Grays.
W/O Kennedy explained that he had been in the Thatched Cottage alone before he was joined by Kotze and later by Dirker and Col. Klindt. Once Dirker had arrived he and W/O Kennedy searched for documents. As far as W/O Kennedy could recall the accused had been taken out of the room by the time they began to search it. At the outset of this search W/O Kennedy claimed that Dirker went straight to the table and began to read the documents there. W/O Kennedy started marking the documents while Dirker read them. According to W/O Kennedy, “None of the Accused saw Dirker find the document which he was so excited about”.
W/O Kennedy said that he did not handle any documents which were not marked by him. After marking about six or seven documents found on the table in the Thatched Cottage W/O Kennedy was purportedly told by Dirker to “leave the documents alone, he would take charge of them. He said I need not go any further with marking of documents. He was to take charge of them”. Mr Berrange clarified that Dirker had made this statement after he had read the document which had made him so excited. W/O Kennedy then left the room with Dirker and they returned with Accused Nos. 2, 5 and 6, as well as Bob Hepple in order to warn them and ask if they wanted to give any explanation of the documents which had been found. In the room, according to W/O Kennedy, the Accused denied that the clothing, documents, and other things belonged to any of them and refused to give any explanations. Dirker had given each of them the standard warning and questioned them individually. Bob Hepple was the only one who denied that the documents, clothing, and other things found in the room belonged to him; all of the others kept completely silent when being questioned by Dirker.
Thereafter, W/O Kennedy stated that the Accused were taken and put in the back of a police van. W/O Kennedy and Dirker returned to the Thatched Cottage and continued their examination of the marked and unmarked documents on the table. W/O Kennedy claimed that in an ashtray on the table was burnt document on which he saw the word “trainee” and drew Dirker’s attention to it. Mr Berrange asked where this document was and Dr Yutar said that the state unfortunately had been unable to find it. W/O Kennedy said that Dirker had taken possession of this and other documents. Furthermore, Dirker took certain documents out of the room before the two of them went into the main house.
W/O Kennedy stated that he saw Arthur Goldreich that afternoon when he arrived at the Farm in his car. According to W/O Kennedy he personally saw Dirker examine Arthur Goldreich’s car and, although he did not see what was inside the car, he did see Dirker removing a number of articles from it. As far as he knew these articles were a number of suitcases. The coal shed, according to W/O Kennedy, was searched after the prisoners had been placed in the van and W/O Kennedy marked the document which was found there (Exhibit R.187). W/O Kennedy also marker certain documents he found in the main house, all of which were handed over to Dirker. W/O Kennedy claimed that he had “meticulously marked” all of the documents found by him save for a number of documents found on the table in the Thatched Cottage which were not marked on the orders given to him by Dirker.
Mr Berrange asked W/O Kennedy about Patrick Gauboutloelle. W/O Kennedy stated that Patrick Gaboutiede was an ANC member whom he had met twice before. Patrick Gauboutloelle had been “arrested and charged with furthering objects of a banned organisation” in 1961 but the charge was withdrawn against him. When W/O Kennedy saw Patrick Gauboutloelle’s name on a list found at behind a photograph in Levy Seloro’s house, he searched the house owned by Patick Gauboutloelle. During the search W/O Kenney was told by Patrick Gauboutloelle that he used to be an ANC member but he had taken no further part in the organisation since it had been banned.
In closing his cross-examination Mr Berrange suggested that W/O Kennedy was not serioud when he stated that it was his belief that all Indian people in the Transvaal had no choice but to be part of the TIC. However, W/O Kennedy said that he had been told by Indians that that it was the policy of the TIC that they had no choice but to join. Finally Mr Berrange asked if W/O Kennedy knew who had arrested Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki and Ahmed Kathrada. W/O Kennedy said that that he was not sure who had arrested these Accused and he confirmed that he and Dirker were the only two involved in the search of the Thatched Cottage.
No re-examination.
Court was then adjourned until the following morning
.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.51/9A/150c) (Vol.51/9A/151c) (Vol.51/9A/152c) (Vol.51/9A/153c) (Vol.51/9A/154c) (Vol.51/9B/155c) (Vol.51/9B/156c) (Vol.51/9B/157c).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 17th February, 1964 (Ms.385/36/7).
Evidence of Daniel Johannes Huggett (MS.385/5).
Evidence of Ronal Martin First (MS.385/5).
Evidence of Johannes Petrus Van Wyk (MS.385/5).
TD Copy, In the matter between The State Applicant and James Kantor Respondent, 19640226, Johannesburg, Judge’s Notes of the Proceedings and of the Evidence heard in Judge’s Chambers on Saturday the 15th February. Judge P Cillie. Dr P Yutar for the Stare, Mr J F Coaker for Mr Kantor. Order: Committing Kantor to gaol and withdrawing bail. (8 leaves); Judge’s Reasons for Committing James Kantor to gaol and withdrawing his bail, 19640228. (5 leaves) 1 item (13 leaves) (MS.385/35/6).
Wits Historical Papers:
K1 – K51 Notes of State Witnesses evidence (AD1844.A9.2).
Evidence of J. Huggett (AD1844.A11.6).
Analysis of Evidence: W/O Huggett (AD1844.A18.13).
Extract of Evidence: R.M. First. (AD1844.A17.9).
Key Words
Police Witnesses, Cape Town, Denis Goldberg, Looksmart Solwandla, Surveillance, Sabotage, Rivonia Raid, Liliesleaf Farm, Transvaal Indian Congress.