Description
On this day proceedings began with Dr Yutar’s immediate resumption of his cross-examination of Lionel Bernstein. Much of the discussion during the first half of Lionel Bernstein’s cross-examination on this day concerned matters which had already been dealt with in part by Dr Yutar on the previous day. Examples of such matters dealt with further were the aims and composition of the COD, various subversive publications such as Fighting Talk and Assegai, as well as the nature of the relationship between the ANC and MK as well as the SACP and the Congress Alliance. Some of the new issues dealt with Dr Yutar for the first time on this day were: the critique of the Rivonia Trial written by Lionel Bernstein in a letter he sent to his sister and brother-in-law whilst in detention during February, 1964, as well as certain other exhibits alleged to be in the handwriting of Lionel Bernstein.
Mr Fischer thereafter took charge of the re-examination of Lionel Bernstein. Under re-examination Lionel Bernstein was afforded the opportunity to go into much more depth in regard to his understanding of Marxist philosophy. In so doing Mr Fischer led Lionel Bernstein to show how his Marxism, and his commitment to the notion of revolutionary change, fuelled his belief that the South African situation was not intractable and that a reformist or non-violent approach was definitely a likely possibility which could successfully achieve a peaceful transition in South Africa. One of the most interesting aspects of this re-examination is Lionel Bernstein’s description of the symptoms he suffered as a result of the “tortuous” conditions of 90-day detention.
Following the re-examination of Lionel Bernstein the defence called Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, to take up the position in the witness box. Mr Fischer was only able to complete about half an hour of Govan Mbeki’s examination-in-chief before court proceedings were adjourned for the day. In this time Mr Fischer led Govan Mbeki in relation to his childhood and earliest experiences of racial oppression, poverty and political activism.
Lionel Bernstein’s Evidence
Further cross-examination by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar began his cross-examination on this day by placing focus on the formation of the Congress of Democrats and the leading figures of this organisation which, unlike the SACP, was part of the Congress Alliance. Lionel Bernstein explained that he had been the person, at a meeting of several hundred Europeans in Johannesburg, who moved to found the COD as an organisation of European South Africans working for a non-racial society. In this way he suggested that he could be considered the leading figure of the organisation. When Dr Yutar pushed for further information Lionel Bernstein explained that a provisional committee had been elected and that committee “set about the job of organising branches and units of this organisation in different parts of the country”. Dr Yutar asked who specifically was the leader of the COD Lionel Bernstein replied, “Well, I would say the Committee led it. I can’t think of any single individual who one would describe as the sort of undisputed leader of the organisation”.
Dr Yutar replied “Are you serious?” and asked if Lionel Bernstein was sure he was telling the Judge the truth. Lionel Bernstein replied that he was “Quite serious” after which Dr Yutar turned attention to Lionel Bernstein’s role on the editorial board of Fighting Talk. Lionel Bernstein admitted that he had written articles for Fighting Talk under his own name, anonymously, and under certain pseudonyms such as Ben Giles and Elwood Cholmondelay. He also conceded that he often signed his work with the initials L.B. and that he was known by the nickname Rusty. Dr Yutar confirmed that both Lionel Bernstein and his wife Hilda were listed communists and added that:
According to your bail application addressed to this court you made it perfectly clear that you were not prepared to have your name taken off the list of listed Communists.
Lionel Bernstein explained that he was not prepared to have his name removed from the list on the basis of the offer which was made to him. Lionel Bernstein said that the basis of this offer was:
That I should give reasons why my name should not be included on the list. I requested, or I don’t know if I requested sir, or I objected to the fact that no hearing was given to these people who were being subjected to this form of punishment, that no attempt was being made to provide us with the evidence on which the Government was acting, and I refused to participate in such a travesty of judicial procedure.
Dr Yutar then went on to ask Lionel Bernstein about the publications Assegai and the African Communist – both of which Lionel Bernstein claimed he had never contributed to. He then moved on to deal with several exhibits, some of which had already been dealt with previously, and Exhibit DM in particular which was a document headed “A message to you for the S.A. Communist Party” issued in English and two African languages. Before reading from Exhibit DM Dr Yutar put it to Lionel Bernstein that in the Soviet Union the average person living under Communist state policies still lived a “normal life” in as much as he owned or rented his (sic) house, bought food from grocery stores, and paid taxes to the state. Lionel Bernstein agreed that this was so. Dr Yutar then read directly from Exhibit DM which suggested that people in the Soviet Union benefited from “free bread, free public transport, free education, free medical services…” and more. From this basis he asked Lionel Bernstein:
Don’t you agree that this is a wickedly false representation to convey to the native people of this people, telling them that under Socialist regime you can get free bread, free public transport, free everything? In fact, according to this document, the Government pays you to live!
Lionel Bernstein retorted that the document was speaking, in his opinion accurately, of the future of the Soviet Union and Communist society. In evidencing his position Lionel Bernstein said:
My lord, if one reads on a paragraph further than the paragraph I read, it says “In the next 20 years the Soviet people will be building a Communist society, and by 1970 they will surpass in production per head of population the strongest and richest capitalist country, the United States” … And it is dealing, as I say, with what is coming in the Soviet Union, and in my view, probably accurately.
Dr Yutar explained that the state was still suggesting, as it had done yesterday, that the SACP often falsified the “true position” and misrepresented facts in its dissemination of propaganda – particularly amongst the “bantu people”. Lionel Bernstein immediately denied this suggestion once again and Dr Yutar shifted his focus to Exhibit R.61 from the basis of which he made the suggestion that it was “a subterfuge to say that the M.K. was an independent organisation” which was done by the ANC in order to prevent its members who supported a non-violent liberation organisation from leaving it now that it had turned to a policy of violence. Lionel Bernstein responded:
My lord, you say a subterfuge which implies that in fact the ANC had changed its policy to one of violence which I have consistently denied here in the box. So I will not accept that the African National Congress was aware of the fact that if it itself started conducting acts of sabotage it would lose a large proportion of its members, I have no doubt that they were aware of that.
Dr Yutar then moved on to deal with a batch of six documents (Exhibits R.83, R.84, R.85, R.94, R121B and R.143) all of which related to Exhibit R.40 and the state’s suggestion that “the Communist Party misrepresented conditions in this country to people in this country and abroad”. Lionel Bernstein repeated that he would deny this suggestion before Dr Yutar delved into his reading of these exhibits and particularly the polemic critique of the courts and the legal system in South Africa issued by the Communist Party. Dr Yutar claimed that the reference to “our Courts” was one such blatant misrepresentation of the true conditions in South Africa. Lionel Bernstein, however, disputed that claim stating “I think the reference to judges who put the preservation of white supremacy before consideration of justice is farfetched. For the rest I think it is correct”. Dr Yutar asked Lionel Bernstein to explain what was “correct” in his mind about the statement that “Points of law and court procedure are thrown to the winds”. Lionel Benstein explained that it was:
Correct in general of the South African Courts, sir, and of the procedures. My lord I had in mind procedure, for instance, which has been adopted in the South African Code recently where points of law have been thrown to the wind, such things as for instance holding a person under duress in order to force him to make a statement, which he then gives in evidence. I think this is a new point of procedure in South Africa. Such matters as not releasing a prisoner on the expiration of their sentence which is a new point of procedure in South African law.
This was what Lionel Bernstein had in mind when reading Exhibit R.40 but he said that he could not say if this is what the author had in mind. Dr Yutar then asked Lionel Bernstein if he had ever “accused the State of coaching its witnesses in this case” or “accused the police in this case of acting improperly”. Lionel Bernstein conceded that it was very possible that he had made both such accusations in this case but he could not recall anything specifically. After stating that the suggestion made by Mr Berrange that Mr X had “tailored his evidence to fit in with the State’s case” was reasonable, in his opinion, Lionel Bernstein went on to state that in regard to his accusation in relation to the misconduct of the police in this case:
I can only refer to the testimony of one police witness who himself said here under oath that when you have a 90-day detainee, and you want to get a statement out of him, you tell him what you know are the facts, and then he confirms them.
After dealing with this statement briefly Dr Yutar asked what evidence Lionel Bernstein had to support his “wicked suggestion” that the state had coached its witnesses in this case. Lionel Bernstein appealed to Judge De Wet directly and asked if this was a relevant question being put to him by the prosecutor. Judge De Wet told Lionel Bernstein that he found the question was a relevant one and that he could answer it. Lionel Bernstein the stated:
Well my lord we did have one case of a witness who testified here on Friday afternoon, who went away for the weekend, who came back on Monday morning, was asked precisely the same questions he had been asked on Friday afternoon, and gave different answers, from which I deduced that some coaching had taken place over the weekend.
Satisfied that Lionel Bernstein could recall no other particular evidence in this regard Dr Yutar went on to deal with the next allegation made by Lionel Bernstein which was that the all of the state’s “substantial witnesses” called in this trial were 90-day detainees. Dr Yutar argued that of the 173 witnesses called by the state only 29 of these had been 90-day detainees. Of this group of 29 Dr Yutar argued that eight were workers from Liliesleaf Farm which would not be considered “substantial witnesses” for the state. Lionel Bernstein interjected that at least one of this group of eight had given evidence to the effect that he had been assaulted by certain police officials in the process of their extracting a statement from him. However, this did not deter Dr Yutar who insisted that these eight as well as the two witnesses who were workers at Mountain View (and who never suggested they had been threatened or coerced to give false evidence) be removed from this larger group of 29 state witnesses who gave evidence as 90-day detainees.
Dr Yutar continued to go through the list of 29 witnesses who were 90-day detainees and, with reference to the court records, claimed in regard to each of them that no evidence had been given that any of them had been forced to give false evidence. When Dr Yutar came to the name Cyril Davids, Lionel Bernstein said, “I won’t accept that sir, because he was held as a 90-day detainee, and his statement was taken from him under conditions which I regard as conditions of torture”. When Dr Yutar came to deal with the evidence of Harry Bambane and made the suggestion that the defence had accepted this witness’s evidence Mr Berrange interjected and said:
My lord, my learned friend is completely wrong, I don’t know where he gets this evidence from – it was in fact suggested that he changed his evidence three times.
Dr Yutar did not respond to Mr Berrange and instead went on to deal with the evidence given by Mr X (Bruno Mtolo) and Mr Z (Abel Mtembu). Lionel Bernstein conceded that it seemed to him that the evidence of Mr X was given freely, and not as a result of torture by police or coaching by the state, although it was still to be treated with a great deal of suspicion. In regard to Mr Z, however, Lionel Bernstein stated that he was not in the same position as Mr X had been in and that “he is a man who was not only detained, he was detained, released and re-detained, and then he gave his evidence. I think it is open to grave suspicion”. When Dr Yutar had finally completed his analysis of each of the 29 90-day detainee witnesses he put the following to Lionel Bernstein:
Despite what I have done now, the analysis I have made, you still say that, “all the substantial witnesses have been detainees who made statements under pressure, and while subject to detention in solitary confinement, and subject certainly to threats about indefinite detention, or prosecution, or both? Their behaviour runs completely according to pattern. All of them have lied or distorted or fabricated their evidence to a greater or lesser extent, some cunningly exculpating or hiding their own part in-the events, some not.”
Judge De Wet asked what document Dr Yutar was reading from and Lionel Bernstein admitted that it was a letter he had written and that he maintained the same opinion he expressed therein. Dr Yutar explained:
I am referring to a letter my lord which this witness wrote to two other people on the 8th February, 1964, and it has not been put in my lord. I don’t want to embarrass anybody and say to whom you wrote it.
Lionel Bernstein interjected “Well perhaps you should embarrass people, sir, and say how you came into possession of this letter”. Dr Yutar suggested that Lionel Bernstein knew perfectly well that it had been intercepted by the jail authorities because it was standard policy that all letters are censored and continued to read what Lionel Bernstein had written in this letter to the court. Dr Yutar argued that the final passage of the letter, which read “And the whole thing disgusts me, the unprincipled timidity of people and even the more unprincipled willingness, eagerness, of the authorities to use them”, was “a condemnation of course not only of the investigating officer but also of the State prosecutors in this case”. Lionel Bernstein stated that “It is a condemnation of the State, sir, which has provided facilities for witnesses’ statements to be taken from them under duress”.
The final suggestion Dr Yutar made in regard to this letter was that it was intended to be used by Lionel Bernstein’s friends for publication overseas – a suggestion which Lionel Bernstein denied completely. Thereafter, Dr Yutar returned his attention to the batch of six exhibits which he had proposed to deal with earlier. Dr Yutar asked whose handwriting these exhibits were written in and Lionel Bernstein conceded that certain of them were written in his hand and that he sometimes used the name Ed or Eddy. He refused to give the identity of the persons referred to as Ethel or Tony and was unable to identify any of the handwriting aside from his own. Dr Yutar argued that all six of the exhibits “are drafts which culminated in the final compilation of Exhibit R.121B”. Furthermore, Dr Yutar suggested that Lionel Bernstein had been asked by Tony to “cast your eye over these documents” because he was a propaganda expert who often did this kind of work. Lionel Bernstein did not accept that he was a propaganda expert and suggested instead that “I was regarded as one of the writers in the movement”.
At this stage court adjourned for the tea-time break during which time Lionel Bernstein was able to go through the set of exhibits being dealt with presently by Dr Yutar. Following the adjournment Dr Yutar continued to lead Lionel Bernstein in regard to the aforementioned exhibits after which he turned attention to the matter of restrictions and the listing of people as communists in South Africa. Lionel Bernstein explained that a person may be placed under restrictions by two laws – the Suppression of Communism Act or the Riotous Assemblies Act. As such a person need not necessarily be a communist, or listed as a communist, in order to be banned or restricted. Dr Yutar asked if Lionel Bernstein knew of any persons who had been listed as communists who were in fact anti-communist. Lionel Bernstein explained that Patrick Duncan was restricted, although he was unsure if he was listed, and that he was “a fanatical anti-communist”.
Thereafter, Dr Yutar went on to deal with the reasons why Lionel Bernstein had chosen to potentially prejudice himself by refusing to answer who he had met when at Rivonia in 1962. Lionel Bernstein explained that the reason he refused to answer this question was because “I fear that anybody whose name I mention in this respect will be subject to persecution, and I’m not prepared to open anybody with whom I’ve been associated up to persecution at all”. In closing his cross-examination Dr Yutar suggested that the similarities between the documents directly linked (via name or handwriting) to Lionel Bernstein and the Part 3 of the plan laid out in Operation Mayibuye were a “remarkable coincidence”.
Re-examination by Mr Fischer.
Mr Fischer’s first primary goal under re-examination was to dismiss the suggestion made by Dr Yutar in relation to certain exhibits that the Communist Party was of the view that violence and armed struggle were the only means of protests action left available to political activists in South Africa. Lionel Bernstein told Mr Fischer that:
I think that it will be fair to say that the majority of documents which I have seen in the preparation of this case or that come from the Communist Party suggest, in fact, that there is a great possibility of non-violent transition in this country.
Mr Fischer then went on to give a brief summary of the evidence Lionel Bernstein had given under cross-examination in regard to the document Operation Mayibuye and asked Lionel Bernstein why he had told the court that the existence of the document had not come as a surprise to him. Lionel Bernstein explained:
My lord, the topic of guerrilla warfare is far from being a new topic in the political circles, the National Movement. It has been discussed on and off as a possibility, a theoretical discussion, for many years. I think there were documents in the treason trial in this matter, as a matter of fact some of the exhibits by some of the individual accused writing about guerrilla warfare, that will be prior to 1956. I don’t think that anybody who pays any serious attention to the liberation of colonial and dependant countries, in the twentieth century at any rate, can discuss this question intelligently without also discussing the prospect of guerrilla warfare in that situation. I’ve heard this sort of discussion over the years, my lord, perhaps a bit more in recent years than in the past, but it didn’t come to me as any surprise at all.
When Mr Fischer asked Lionel Bernstein, having now studied the document Operation Mayibuye, what he thought of the feasibility of the plan stipulated therein Lionel Bernstein answered:
Well, the feasibility of it, my lord, I think is very very remote indeed, I would say it is probably in the field of fantasy, this part of the document. I don’t claim to be an expert, however, on this, so that is my opinion.
Mr Fischer led Lionel Bernstein in regard to numerous aspects of Operation Mayibuye with which he disagreed or refused to accept as true statements. Mr Fischer then turned attention to the Assegai publication and Lionel Bernstein explained that what he knew of this publication was that it “certainly tried to give the impression that it is responsible for directing activities of Umkhonto” but it was not the official magazine of MK. The topic which took up the majority of time at this stage was that of Lionel Bernstein’s understanding of Marxism and the characteristics of a Marxist perspective of the situation in South Africa. According to Lionel Bernstein the concept of revolutionary change and a refusal to accept a situation as fixed, immovable or irreplaceable were fundamental principles of Marxist philosophy and were “absolutely basic to all Communist thinking on every subject”. Moving away from the realm of pure theory Lionel Bernstein explained also that in Africa there had only been two countries, as far as he could recall, “which have achieved their national independence by violent military means, that is Algeria and Angola”. He then added without interruption, “Well, Angola hasn’t yet achieved, so it is in fact only one… For the rest my lord, the transfer in Africa I think, has been non-violent”.
Lionel Bernstein also discussed what he called the “non-violent insurrection” in India which achieved national independence and some of the tactics it deployed, both internally and by means of international pressure, which Lionel Bernstein believed were not unlikely to happen successfully again in a context such as South Africa. After the lunch-time adjournment Mr Fischer returned attention to the Marxist notion of revolutionary change and, in essence, asked Lionel Bernstein if the teleological transfer from Capitalism to Socialism could be achieved through a reformist approach. Lionel Bernstein said that change could be brought about by piecemeal reforms taking place over time and agreed with Mr Fischer’s suggestion that this meant that the franchise could be gradually extended in South Africa and that if the government showed signs of such a commitment it would undoubtedly receive the support of the people.
After dealing further with the exhibits put o Lionel Bernstein under cross-examination Mr Fischer eventually came to deal with the “personal subject” of the letter Lionel Bernstein had written and handed over to the prison authorities to transmit to his sister and her husband. Mr Fischer argued that Dr Yutar had only read the criticisms from the letter which, if read as a whole, also provided the reasons for Lionel Bernstein’s claims made in regard to certain state witnesses’ evidence. Mr Fischer also used this discussion as a basis from which to raise the point that Lionel Bernstein was a 90-day detainee and asked if he had ever been threatened or “offered any rewards” when making his statement to the police. Lionel Bernstein answered:
Well, my lord, so far as threats are concerned, I was told repeatedly, in interrogation sessions by the police that if I did not give the information they required satisfactorily I would be detained indefinitely for 90 days and 90 days and another 90 days. One of the interrogating officers in fact told me that he had got 23 years to go in the service, so he can afford to wait longer than I can. That sort of threat was made repeatedly. Towards the end of my detention continued reference was made to the fact that very serious matters, charges, were going to be brought against me in which the death sentence was very, very likely to be brought on, and this question was harped on repeatedly sir. Suggestions were made, not directly but slightly obliquely that perhaps I could name my price for giving information, if I felt that interested me. I was told about people who get considerable sums of money for giving information.
The sum of R6, 000 was mentioned about one person who gave a very, very important piece of information. So to that extent, inducements and threats were held out to me.
Lionel Bernstein went on to describe the “torturous” conditions under which 90-day detainees were kept and when Mr Fischer asked if he felt that being held under these conditions had affected his memory or not Lionel Bernstein said:
I can only speak about the symptoms I observed in myself, and I don’t know if I have got a complete record of them. I developed an extremely sever handshake after about 60 days, a tremble in my hands, which lasted for some weeks after the end of my detention. I found at the end of my detention sir, that I was utterly unable to concentrate. If I sat down to write a letter, I could write two sentences and then I would have to get up and walk around for 5 or 10 minutes before I could write a third. Extreme anxiety, my lord, about absolutely ridiculous things which a normal person would not feel the least anxiety about at all, I found making me extremely anxious and reducing me to a state of nerves under certain conditions. These things I observed.
Lionel Bernstein went on to say that despite the “mental torture” of interrogations he often welcomed these sessions just to get some relief from the crippling loneliness. Mr Fischer asked what one did to occupy oneself when in detention but, before he could receive an answer, Judge De Wet interjected “What is the relevance of this Mr Fischer? You are now trying to get evidence in at the back door which I excluded from the front door”. Mr Fischer replied “Well, this is a personal experience my lord” but chose to drop the matter.
The final aspect dealt with by Mr Fischer in Lionel Bernstein’s re-examination was the publicly known information that there were a number of police officers who had committed assaults but remained members of the police force. Mr Fischer noted that this was not particular to South Africa alone but asked Lionel Bernstein if he thought that “the existence of the many discriminatory laws” in South Africa “affected this position”. Lionel Bernstein stated:
I think very definitely, sir. I think people who are brought up in the tradition of regarding non-whites as inferior, seem to treat them in a much rougher and less reasonable fashion than if they were brought up to believe that they are not inferior.
Thereafter Mr Fischer asked no further questions and Lionel Bernstein was allowed to step down from the witness box and resume his seat in the dock alongside his co-accused. Mr Fischer then called Accused No.4, Govan Mbeki, as the next witness for the defence.
Govan Mbeki’s Evidence
Examination-in-chief by Mr Fischer.
Mr Fischer began his examination-in-chief of Govan Mbeki by dealing with childhood, education and earliest experiences of racial oppression. Govan Mbeki explained that when at boarding school he would spend most of his weekends and holidays staying with his sister in Johannesburg. It was during this time that he claimed to have first coming into contact with urban life and working people as well as police raids for passes and liquor. Govan Mbeki explained that these experiences affected him in as much as:
Yes, in the sense that practically every weekend, I would say, raids or practically daily raids for passes and for liquor took place. Some police who closed the entrances to the alleys behind the houses, while others combed the backyards, beating up almost indiscriminately the men who were found in the backyards, and arresting those who were unable to produce passes. Then living in a state of fear like this, resulted in one never knowing a rest at weekends, more particularly, after a long week of hard work. It was during this time that I realised as others had realised amongst the Africans that if the African was to restore his respect at all, and enjoy any measure of freedom, then he would have to struggle hard to see that the pass laws were retrieved.
Govan Mbeki explained that he had been interested in politics since 1920 “while I was still a boy in primary school”. Govan Mbeki specifically recalled the fund raising concerts for the ANC which were set up by Reverend Mthlongo in his home town as well as the times when he acted as a translator for his cousin at Industrial and Commercial Workers’ Union (ICU) meetings in his youth. After dealing with the immense popularity of the ICU movement Mr Fischer said:
Mr. Mbeki, I’m going to be a little personal, because I want to give his lordship some picture of your background, in order to be able to argue what your attitude would be towards guerrilla warfare. I think you say you were brought up in a strongly religious atmosphere. Did you also meet or attend meetings addressed by Dr Aggrey?
Govan Mbeki answered that he had never personally attended meetings addressed by Dr James Emman Kwegyir Aggrey, when visiting South Africa in the early-1920s, but that he had read Dr Aggrey’s writings. He went on to explain that “practically every African boy in the Secondary Schools” was made to read and learn Dr Aggrey’s “famous saying to the effect that if you want harmony on a piano you must play on both the black and the white notes”. Govan Mbeki confirmed that this notion was directly in line with the religious principle “do unto others as you would that they do unto you” which had been so strongly advocated by his parents during his youth.
Govan Mbeki then went on to discuss his experience of white poverty during the depression era in the late-1920s and 1930s whilst he was living in the Transkei. He described the endless numbers of white people who had been rendered unemployed and homeless as a result of the collapse in the agricultural industry. Govan Mbeki told the court of how he had fed and sheltered many of these white people, who came walking through the Transkei with barely any clothes on their backs, in his home like so many other Africans in the rural areas. This, according to Govan Mbeki, was when he first gained an experiential understanding of poverty which cuts across the lines of race. However, he did not linger for long on this observation before moving on to discuss the introduction of the “Civilized Labour Policy” and the way in which it manifested in the Transkei:
Jobs that had normally been undertaken by Africans. I mean the pick and shovel type of Job on the railways that had originally been done by the Africans, were taken over by the Europeans and upgraded accordingly.
He added that this was taking place during one of the worst drought years in living memory in the Transkei and in the context of growing political unrest in the industrial urban centres and under the auspices of the ANC and ICU respectively. Govan Mbeki explained that:
The African National Congress in the late twenties 20 and the early thirties, was campaigning against the pass laws and about the same time the I.C.U. was campaigning for higher wages for Africans, and what was striking to me at the time, was the manner in which the Government faced up to a situation like that. Instead of sitting down to negotiate with the leaders of these organisations, it seemed to adopt the attitude that they had no business to complain at all! And finally there were disturbances in places like Bloemfontein and Durban, which resulted in some shootings. I remember one of the men shot at the time, was one of the early heroes of the Movement for National Liberation was Johannes Nkosi. That was 1930.
Mr Fischer then turned attention to the period of time when Govan Mbeki had completed his studies at Fort Hare University. The first thing Govan Mbeki said in this regard was that “I had always felt that I owed something to the persons of the Transkei who had made it possible for me to receive my education”. He clarified that this was particularly so because he had received the Bunga Scholarship which came from the taxes contributed by ordinary parents in the Transkei. As such he wanted to go and teach at a Secondary or High School in the Transkei but was forced to take up a teaching position in Durban when he was unable to get a post in the Transkei. While teaching in Durban Govan Mbeki wrote a booklet called “The Transkei in the Making”.
In 1938 Govan Mbeki eventually was offered and accepted a post at Clerkbury Training School in the Transkei but was dismissed when his booklet was published a short while after he had accepted the post. As such Govan Mbeki decided to open a general trading store in order to make a living and so that he could find time to undertake political activities. Mr Fischer then turned attention to some of the organisations which Govan Mbeki had “brought into being and which [he] helped to run”. The first organisation was the Transkei Registered Voter’s Association, for which Govan Mbeki was elected Secretary in 1941, which aimed to “restore the African to the common roads from which they had been removed in 1936, when the Native Representation Act was passed, and to retain what there was still left of the African franchise, as well as to strive to have the franchise extended to the Africans in the other Provinces. These were some of the objects of the organisation”. Two years later, in 1943, Govan Mbeki had also been responsible for establishing the Transkei Organised Bodies, which formed part of a federation of many diverse organisations, which aimed to “create a united front of the peasantry and other sections of the African population in the Transkei, as well as to highlight the problems of the peasantry, more particularly, as they presented a large problem of landlessness.
From 1943 for a period of four years Govan Mbeki served as a member of the Gifted Council and the General Council of the Bunga. As such, and in light of the work he did in relation to the above mentioned organisation, Mr Fischer deduced that Govan Mbeki was a man with great experience in making representations to state institutions, moving resolutions, and going on deputations in attempts to negotiate with the South African government. The final statement made by Govan Mbeki on this day before Judge De Wet called for the adjournment was:
During all those years, I submitted motions as well as other members of the Bunga did, and these were to be in turn, submitted to the Government, but you know the stock reply that one gets from the Government on such matters: either that the time was not ripe or you were reminded what the Government Policy was.
Thereafter court was adjourned until 10:00am the following day.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.54/Belt 92e) (Vol.54/Belt 93e) (Vol.54/Belt 94e) (Vol.54/Belt 95e) (Vol.54/Belt 96e) (Vol.54/Belt 97e) (Vol.54/Belt 98e) (Vol.54/Belt 99e) (Vol.54/Belt 100e).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 5th May, 1964, (Ms.385/36/1).
File containing details about Accused Nos. 1-7: TS, Accused No.6 [Lionel Bernstein] (MS.385/31/3/7).
Lionel Bernstein [Acc.No.6] – incomplete. Marked AA4. (MS.385/9).
File containing details about Accused Nos. 1-7: TS, Accused No.4 [Govan Mbeki] (MS.385/31/3/5).
Govan Mbeki [Acc.No.4] [Large sections missing, starts at p.331] (MS.385/8).
WITS Historical Papers:
Lionel Bernstein’s Evidence (3 Folders). (AD1844.A26.1).
Extract of Lionel Bernstein’s Evidence (copy). (AD1844.A26.2).
Govan Mbeki’s Evidence (copy). (AD1844.A28.1).
Extract of Govan Mbeki’s Evidence (copy). (AD1844.A28.2).
Mbeki’s Personal Position. (AD1844.A30b12).
Notes made by Govan Mbeki regarding his interrogation while in detention. (AD1844.Bc1).
Key Words
Lionel Bernstein, Govan Mbeki, COD, Communistic Propaganda, Fighting Talk, Assegai, MK, ANC, Congress Alliance, Marxism, Revolutionary Change, 90-day detention.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.