Description
This was the second day of Govan Mbeki’s cross-examination by Dr Yutar. The issues dealt with by Dr Yutar on this day were predominantly to do with the work of the ANC external mission in soliciting financial and military support from African states hostile to the South African government as well as the related issue of the formation of MK and Govan Mbeki’s role in the organisation as a member of its National High Command from April, 1963.
Govan Mbeki’s Evidence
Further cross-examination by Dr Yutar.
Dr Yutar began his examination-in-chief by asking Govan Mbeki what subject matters he and Raymond Mhlaba had put across to ANC members during meetings they addressed and suggested that an example was telling them about “the hardships they suffered”. Like Walter Sisulu and Ahmed Kathrada, who both gave evidence at earlier stages, Govan Mbeki completely rejected the idea that the ordinary black person in South Africa needed to be told about the daily hardships they faced as a result of apartheid policies and practices. Dr Yutar asked if Govan Mbeki and Raymond Mhlaba had ever discussed “any of the advantages which the Bantu in this country enjoy” and Govan Mbeki replied “I’ve already indicated that I’m not aware of ant advantages which would warrant Mr. Mhlaba or myself going out of our way to sign songs about”. In sum Govan Mbeki suggested that he and Raymond Mhlaba had addressed organisational matters mainly when speaking at ANC meetings.
Dr Yutar asked Govan Mbeki if there was even one single document, amongst all for the exhibits handed in by the state for this case, which he would allege was falsified or fabricated in anyway by the police. Govan Mbeki said that he was making no such accusation against the police and then went on to explain that one leaflet which gave “the names of people I know to have been good and loyal members of the ANC as traitors” was not, in his opinion, officially issued by the ANC or any person familiar with its leadership. Aside from this, Govan Mbeki conceded that he had no further complaints about the validity of other exhibits. From this basis Dr Yutar put the following suggestions to Govan Mbeki:
That the ANC has deliberately mislead the majority of the Bantu who are members of the ANC… And I want to put it to you that the Communist Party of South Africa, is nothing else but a gigantic fraud on the people of this country, particularly members of your own race. And that these unfortunate people are being misled by the Communist Party with false propaganda... And that not only they in in this country, but the whole world is being poisoned by false propaganda on the part of the South African Communist Party.
Govan Mbeki denied all of the above suggestions by Dr Yutar who then proceeded to read from a document which was a statement by the Editorial Board of the African Communist which spoke of the Rivonia Trial as “the biggest frame-up in South African history, not excluding even the… Treason Trial of 1955 to 1961” (Exhibit DP). Govan Mbeki said that he did not personally think it was correct to refer to this specific trial as a “frame-up” and whilst he did not want to concede that the document was “false” in its content he did concede that it was “incorrect”. After Dr Yutar read several extracts from this document he asked Govan Mbeki if it was not a clear example of “fraud” on the part of the ANC which was identical to the fraud of the SACP “telling people that under a Communistic regime there would be free bread and free transport, no rents”. In this regard Govan Mbeki replied:
That’s no more a fraud… If that is a fraud – which I do not regard as a fraud – than that [which] the government is practicing on millions of Africans in the Bantustans, telling them they’re giving them independence.
When Govan Mbeki told Dr Yutar that he staunchly believed that under a communist regime free bread would be a reality for all the prosecutor said, “You believe in fairy tales!” before indicating that he would now be moving on to deal with three correlated matters. The first was that of transport and, in particular, the allegations by state witness that Accused Nos.9 and 10, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, had been involved in the transportation of MK recruits in Johannesburg and had made use of a Zephyr car which was known to belong to the ANC. Govan Mbeki did not deny this and said “Well, it’s possible, but I think it would have been a very unwise man to have used that Zephyr”. Dr Yutar then turned to a number of exhibits related to the Zephyr vehicle but Govan Mbeki insisted that these documents showed that the car had been used for ANC work only and that “a member of MK could not have access to this vehicle because he would have had first not only to get… permission of the custodian, but the custodian would in turn have had to get the permission of the National Secretariat to release it for him to use.
Dr Yutar asked Govan Mbeki what would happen “if the official in question was not only a member of the MK but also a member of the ANC, will he use it for transporting recruits from the Marabi Hotel to S.K. Building?” Govan Mbeki claimed that this could have only been so if the official in question was a member of the ANC Secretariat (comprised of seven people including himself and Walter Sisulu) and agreed with Dr Yutar’s suggestion that “If this Zephyr was used to accompany recruits to the border” it would be “outside the jurisdiction of the particular person using the Zephyr”. Dr Yutar spent a significant amount of time pursuing the state’s allegation that this Zephyr belonging to the ANC had been used for MK work – which Govan Mbeki persistently denied. He then turned attention to Exhibit T.54, which Govan Mbeki conceded he had written, and stated:
In point of fact, I don’t know whether the two are related, but is it not a fact that the ANC solicited and got in the assistance of those people – Lionel Morris, Basil Stein, and others – who were writing Assegai, roping them in to help the MK. Is that not true?
Govan Mbeki denied this accusation causing Dr Yutar to threaten to produce a document proving as much to the court. When Govan Mbeki appeared unaffected by this information Dr Yutar said that he would deal with this document “at its proper time”. Dr Yutar then turned to deal with the correspondence documents, discussed on Friday, and stated:
You see Mbeki, the three topics that I was going to deal with, one is transport, second is finance, the third correspondence. I’m going to refer to the exhibits, and of the exhibits that I’m going to refer to under those years, there’s not a single exhibit that draws a distinction to which his lordship has now drawn [between the ANC and MK].
Judge De Wet interjected and told Dr Yutar that Govan Mbeki had already answered that the letters in question referred to the affairs of both organisations causing Dr Yutar to ask “Although you claim that the MK was an independent body?” Govan Mbeki explained:
At that point we made the admission. I mean both Mr Sisulu and myself have made the admission that at the point where the National Secretariat handled correspondence between the National High Command and the… our mission abroad, then the activities of the two matched to an extent that it would not have been possible to draw a line.
Dr Yutar then told Govan Mbeki that he intended from here on to argue with him only in regard to documents drawn up by persons other than himself and that the state would be making its own submission in regard to the documents he had written at a later stage. Dr Yutar then moved on to deal with the subject of finance and placed his focus initially on exhibits and state witness evidence which suggested that explosives had been stolen and sold to Elias Motsoaledi who then prepared them for use by MK units. Govan Mbeki said “that was a business deal” to which Dr Yutar replied “Nice business deal, to steal explosives!” Govan Mbeki claimed that he was unaware of any instructions having been given by the NHC for explosives to be stolen. Judge De Wet forced Govan Mbeki to concede that he could not deny this in light of evidence given in this court. Dr Yutar then moved on to deal with Arthur Goldreich whom he claimed was “co-opted” onto the NHC but was too lacking in courage to commit any acts of sabotage himself. Govan Mbeki said that he didn’t “feel happy about this word co-opt” and suggested instead that Arthur Goldreich “was asked to come and table a document… and to present the document”.
Judge De Wet inserted himself directly into the conversation and said that this was in fact an example of co-opting and, after some further discussion of Arthur Goldreich movements in 1963, he called for the teatime adjournment. Following the adjournment Dr Yutar resumed proceedings by clarifying that it was in April, 1963, when Govan Mbeki claimed was told by Arthur Goldreich about the document Operation Mayibuye and the syllabus, or lectures, he had been asked to prepare by the National High Command. Govan Mbeki confirmed that this was correct and added that he had helped Arthur Goldreich with the historical background section of his lectures and that this had been Arthur Goldreich’s only connection with MK. Dr Yutar put it Govan Mbeki that his evidence could not be correct “and that Goldreich must have been a member of the MK… not only co-opted, but must have been a member of the MK a long time before”. Govan Mbeki admitted that insofar as he was a member of the Technical Committee, Arthur Goldreich was a member of MK. Dr Yutar went further and put it to Govan Mbeki that Arthur Goldreich had in fact been a member of the National High Command. Govan Mbeki denied this as well as Dr Yutar’s related suggestion that:
Not only was he a member of the National High Command but he was asked by the High Command to undertake what I can only describe as a mission of treason abroad… not only to learn how to manufacture explosives but also how to get military assistance from countries unfriendly to South Africa.
Govan Mbeki, like Walter Sisulu, argued that Arthur Goldreich had gone far beyond the scope of his given instructions when he entered into the discussion of future procurement of arms and military assistance from states other than South Africa and added that there were documents presented in this court which made the exact same claim he was making in this regard. Dr Yutar then asked why Nelson Mandela had visited the frontline camps in Algeria if not to solicit future military assistance on his trip throughout Africa. Govan Mbeki answered that he Nelson Mandela had done so in order to understand for himself what the situation in these military camps were and added “I’ve not heard any evidence to the effect that there was anything more”.
Returning focus to the specific topic of finance with which he was dealing Dr Yutar asked Govan Mbeki to explain exactly were MK had received monies from outside of South Africa in order to fund its campaigns and pay for recruits to be sent for training outside the country. Govan Mbeki admitted that he knew the answer to Dr Yutar’s question but refused to answer it. He conceded that one of the places in which MK monies might have been Arthur Goldreich’s safe at Liliesleaf Farm and, in response to Dr Yutar’s question, admitted that the pockets of Accused Nos.3, 6 and 5 might have been one of the places too. Yet, aside from this, Govan Mbeki refused to say anything about the book keeping or accounting practices of either the ANC or MK – as well as the fact that they were kept separately.
Dr Yutar then suggested that the above mentioned accused were in fact Communists that were controlling the ANC which Govan Mbeki denied completely. Dr Yutar then went on to deal specifically with Exhibit T.35 once again. Govan Mbeki admitted that the document was in his handwriting and explained, as he had done in his evidence-in-chief, that this document was a set of notes he had written of a verbal report made to him by a man who had attended the conference in Addis Ababa in May, 1957, as an ANC representative. Govan Mbeki refused to say who this man was and indicated, not for the first time, that he would refuse to comment on the vast majority of this document if Dr Yutar chose to deal with it. Dr Yutar was undeterred by this and began to read extensively from the report which dealt with issues such as the opinions expressed at the conference, what had been achieved in terms of establishing the external mission of the ANC and soliciting support for other African States, as well as challenges which were ‘slowing down’ or otherwise negatively impact the sending of recruits for training in Tanganyika and Ethiopia.
Dr Yutar argued that this document was evidence of what he called “the mission of treason abroad”, and that the final charter adopted at the Addis Ababa Conference, according to Govan Mbeki’s own notes, was a blending of at least three schools of thought into an ultimate decision to pursue “armed insurrection and open rebellion” in South Africa with the support of African States. Govan Mbeki denied this suggestion but Dr Yutar said that if Govan Mbeki was unwilling to explain and have his denial tested under cross-examination – then he had no right to make such a denial. Following this Dr Yutar continued to read from the document and Govan Mbeki adapted his response to “No comment” which he uttered at least a dozen times during this stage of his cross-examination. For example, he refused to comment on whether or not the “struggling liberation movement – discussed in his notes and said to be the future recipients of financial and military aid from African States – was a reference to the National Liberation Movement in South Africa. Nor would he say whether the training programmes outside the country were “slowed” by challenges resulting from language barriers.
After spending much time on Exhibit T.35, with very few concessions from Govan Mbeki having been made, Dr Yutar turned his and the court’s attention to Exhibit R.130. In this regard Govan Mbeki firstly said that the he was not prepared to say who Ray is that was referred to in the exhibit aside from the fact that it certainly was not Raymond Mhlaba. Govan Mbeki made the same refusal to identify Joe, Scott or Z.K., and denied Dr Yutar’s suggestion that this document was a clear indication that Defence and Aid monies were collected from overseas sources and remitted to South Africa for the purpose of furthering the commission of acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare. In discussing this document, as well as Exhibit R.53, the subject of relations between the ANC and the PAC came to the fore of discussion. Govan Mbeki was not even prepared to say whether the issue of promoting unity between the PAC and the ANC was on the agenda of the meeting he had referred to in the notes (Exhibit R.53) which he admitted were also in his handwriting.
Govan Mbeki refused to identify the persons who were in favour of guerrilla warfare listed in these notes under the initials YC, EC, and MB. He also refused to say who Mrs Percy was but Dr Yutar tried to imply that the state knew who this was by getting Govan Mbeki to admit that Andrew Mlangeni was married. Dr Yutar then turned his attention to the letters (Exhibits R.184 and R.216) both of which Govan Mbeki claimed he knew nothing about. These letters had much to do with Oliver Tambo’s role as a leading figure in the work of the ANC external mission. Govan Mbeki admitted that Oliver Tambo was “always on fund raising missions for the ANC” and that Oliver Tambo may have possibly assisted the MK in this regard and in regard to organising of recruits for training as part of the external mission. Following the discussion of these two letters which were found at Rivonia Judge De Wet called for the lunchtime adjournment.
Immediately after the adjournment Dr Yutar told Govan Mbeki that he would “run through quickly a few exhibits found at Travallyn”. These were correspondence documents dealing with the work of the external mission in regard to receiving and sending money to and from South Africa, organising the sending of recruits and students outside of the country, and other matters. The exhibits discussed at this stage were: T.26, T.27, T.30, T.54, T.57, T.65, and T.36. There was more in regard to these exhibits upon which Govan Mbeki refused to comment than that upon which he gave an answer. In regard to Exhibit T.26 he stated that the document had been written by a student representative to the Secretariat of the ANC but refused to say whether W.M.S. stood for Walter Sisulu. Exhibit T.30 was also written by a student according to Govan Mbeki but he refused to identify who this was. Similarly, in regard to Exhibit T.65, Govan Mbeki refused to say if the name “Lilian” referred to Lilian Ngoyi. In dealing with these exhibits the question of the purchase of the Travallyn property came to the fore. Govan Mbeki said that the question of the purchase of this property had been broached for the first time in a meeting of the National High Command in May, 1963, but he was not prepared to say who attended this meeting or who made the suggestion.
Govan Mbeki explained that Travallyn was purchased as a hiding place, specifically for members of MK, and as a temporary residence for recruits in transit out of the country. Dr Yutar said that he could not understand why it was necessary to purchase Travallyn as a hiding place when Rivonia was such a good hiding place already being used by MK members, such as Govan Mbeki. Govan Mbeki explained that the MK needed its own property and that Rivonia could not have been used for all the hiding purposes of the National Liberation Movement – particularly as it was known by certain peoples who had been taken into police custody and it was feared that it would not remain secret much longer. Thereafter, Govan Mbeki claimed that the use of Travallyn as a site for the manufacture and storing of explosives was never discussed at any meeting of the National High Command and that Arthur Goldreich had merely suggested that the location be used for that purpose in his Housing Report he submitted to the National High Command as one of the feasibility studies of Operation Mayibuye.
Govan Mbeki refused, once again, to say who else was in the Logistics Department along with Arthur Goldreich and insisted that the money used to purchase Travallyn had come from MK sources. Dr Yutar then turned attention to Denis Goldberg and his role in regard to the purchase of Travallyn on behalf of the MK. Govan Mbeki said that Denis Goldberg was “an old member in the movement, I mean the Congress Alliance” and that he had made it clear to Govan Mbeki and others that his intention was to leave the country in the latter-half of 1963. It was for these reasons that he was a suitable candidate to assist MK in buying the Travallyn property and making certain other investigations on behalf of the organisation – not because he was a member of its National High Command. Govan Mbeki was not willing to say where any of the letters presented to him had been written but explained that he had done “practically all the typed letters” when he was operating from Rivonia.
Once Dr Yutar had finished dealing with the correspondence documents from Travallyn he shifted attention the establishment of the MK. Govan Mbeki explained, yet again, that it was during a meeting of the ANC NEC in June, 1961, that a decision was taken to allow its members to join Umkhonto we Siswe in embarking upon a new campaign of sabotage. Dr Yutar asked if the rank and file members of the ANC had been consulted about this significant shift in policy before or after this decision had been taken by the NEC. Govan Mbeki suggested that “both ways really work” because, like many other political organisations, ideas came from both the top and the bottom in the ANC; but he conceded that in this case the decision was taken by the NEC and the general members were informed about it later. Govan Mbeki claimed that the name of the organisation Umkhonto we Sizwe was not decided upon during this meeting of the ANC NEC and that he had first seen it in the MK Manifesto which was issued in December, 1961.
When Dr Yutar asked what exactly had been decided upon in this June meeting of the ANC NEC, Govan Mbeki said:
I would like to, if I can, use words very correctly, I don’t know, it may not suit you. The point I would like to make is that the ANC doesn’t say so-and-so you go and form an organisation. The ANC takes a decision to say “if any of our members decide to join that organisation which would have been formed to carry out acts of sabotage – we as the organisation that is the ANC would not put any obstacle in the way of our members, as individuals, joining that organisation”... To that extent I agree it was a departure from the policy of the ANC.
Dr Yutar accepted Govan Mbeki’s answer without challenging it before moving on to ask if representatives of the Congress Alliance had been consulted in regard to the formation of MK. Govan Mbeki claimed that leading figures in the Congress Alliance were consulted individually by Nelson Mandela and those others he grouped around himself in form the MK. He did not know of any meeting of the Joint Executive which had taken place to discuss the issue of forming an organisation to carry out sabotage campaigns but attributed this to the fact that, at that time, many members of legal organisations in the Congress Alliance had been banned and that this, coupled with the fact that the ANC was operating underground, made holding a meeting of the Joint Executive too difficult to arrange. Dr Yutar then asked Govan Mbeki to describe exactly how MK had started its operations.
In reply to this Govan Mbeki explained that Nelson Mandela, the leading person behind the idea of creating such an organisation, got around himself a group of people who subsequently formed themselves into the National High Command. The NHC then set up the four Regional High Commands in the four main areas – Johannesburg, Durban, Cape Town and Port Elizabeth. When Dr Yutar interrupted Govan Mbeki and asked him exactly whom the people Nelson Mandela had gathered around himself to for the original MK NHC Govan Mbeki stated that he did not necessarily know (and would not say) who these founding members of the NHC had been but said that it was they who had set up the Regional Commands. Dr Yutar asked Govan Mbeki if he had ever been consulted in regard to the establishment of the Regional Command in Port Elizabeth – where he was stationed as one of only three ANC NEC members – or if he had ever been consulted in regard to suitable candidates from the ANC branches to join the MK in the region. Govan Mbeki answered no to both questions much to the amazement of Dr Yutar and Judge De Wet. The latter inserted himself directly into proceedings and asked Govan Mbeki “are going ask me to believe that you were in Port Elizabeth and you didn’t know how the Regional Command of the MK was formed – who was on it who came down to form it – are you going to ask me to believe that?”
Govan Mbeki argued that “It would have raised an outcry” if he, as a top member of the ANC at the National Level, had started to interfere with “regional machinery or branch machinery”. He continued to explain that the way the ANC operated, the kind of democracy it practiced, was such that even a leading figure such as himself was no more than an ordinary ANC member when he was in Port Elizabeth. He explained that his position on the NEC was irrelevant and he received his instructions from the leadership of the New Brighton Branch, “That’s how the democracy of the ANC works, you may be right at the top but when you come to your branch you are not in charge, you are not the chief... Men at the top level cannot go around giving instructions at a branch level”. Dr Yutar was unwilling to believe that Govan Mbeki, as member of NEC, severed no special function for either the NAC or the MK in Port Elizabeth.
However Govan Mbeki maintained that it was only in April, 1963, that he found out who constituted the members of the MK Regional High Commands and added “I just can’t know beyond what I know!” The final point discussed on this day before Judge De Wet called for the adjournment was the acts of sabotage committed in East London and Govan Mbeki’s claim that there was no MK Regional Command in East London. Dr Yutar put it Govan Mbeki that the acts of sabotage committed in East London had fallen under the jurisdiction of the Port Elizabeth Regional Command. Govan Mbeki denied this and said that, purely based on the scope of the distance of East London from Port Elizabeth, it was obvious that a Regional Command would have had to have been established there if acts of sabotage were to be carried out by MK units. Dr Yutar stated that several witnesses had already testified to the fact that there was actually and MK Regional Command in East London to which Govan Mbeki offered no reply and Judge De Wet took the opportunity to call for the adjournment.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.54/Belt 119e) (Vol.54/Belt 120e) (Vol.54/Belt 121e) (Vol.54/Belt 122e) (Vol.54/Belt 123e) (Vol.54/Belt 124e) (Vol.54/Belt 125e) (Vol.54/Belt 126e) (Vol.54/Belt 127e).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 8th May, 1964, (Ms.385/36/1).
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:
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
Govan Mbeki, ANC External Mission, African States, Military Aid, Financial Aid, Guerrilla Warfare, Explosives, Operation Mayibuye, MK, NHC.