Description
For reasons which are unknown, Judge De Wet adjourned proceedings early on this day, which meant that Mr Krogh was unable to complete his cross-examination of Denis Goldberg. Mr Krogh began his cross-examination on this day with a focus on the business engagements Denis Goldberg had had in Johannesburg in conducting his investigations into the material requirements for the proposed future campaign of guerrilla warfare, at the request of Arthur Goldreich. The reasons Denis Goldberg had given in evidence for the purchase of the Travallyn property, as well as the reasons he gave accounting for why he had decided to leave the country illegally via Johannesburg in the first place, were all challenged by Mr Krogh during cross-examination. Thereafter, the junior prosecutor went on to deal with the issue of Mamre Camp and made Denis Goldberg describe in detail every aspect of the intended programme for the campers and the reasons thereof. Some of the key issues deal with on this day were: the accusation that there was a guerrilla warfare manual read aloud and studied at Mamre Camp; the military titles used at the camp; and some aspects of the evidence given against Denis Goldberg by Cyril Davids and Caswell Mboxela.
Denis Goldberg’s Evidence
Further cross-examination by Mr Krogh.
Mr Krogh resumed him cross-examination on this day by dealing with the few remaining business owners in Johannesburg whom Denis Goldberg had deceived in various ways in order to “protect his own skin” – as Mr Krogh put it – whilst completing the investigations into the practical requirements for launching a guerrilla warfare campaign. In dealing with these “subterfuges” – as Denis Goldberg preferred to call them – Mr Krogh put it to Denis Goldberg that he had told “a lot of unnecessary lies” to people in making his investigations and inferred that there may have been some sinister reason behind it. In response to this sinister inference Denis Goldberg said:
Let me explain my position quite clearly. I had undertaken to make an investigation I considered to be important. I had left Cape Town knowing… that the security police would be looking for me. I considered it necessary to make this investigation and therefore took steps to ensure that I would not be arrested before I had completed this investigation. If this be lies then it be lies. This was the purpose of it.
Denis Goldberg was unable to refute Mr Krogh’s suggestion that when he first went to Johannesburg he did “go underground” in the sense that he did his best to avoid being found and detained by the police under the 90-day detention law. Mr Krogh then turned attention back to the investigations Denis Goldberg had conducted Johannesburg. One of the most interesting lines of argument adopted by Mr Krogh at this stage was his suggestion that Denis Goldberg was lying to the court (or at least not telling the whole truth) when he claimed that he had taken out the post box in Saxonwold in order to receive business correspondence and letters from his wife. When Denis Goldberg asked Mr Krogh to explain his meaning the junior prosecutor said “Can’t you work it out for yourself this time? You were very quick at anticipating me yesterday. Denis Goldberg replied “Put your question to me please”.
Mr Krogh argued, in sum, that there was evidence that Denis Goldberg had used the residential address of his friend Mrs Nana Weinberg – 85 Houghton Drive – to obtain quotes and correspondence from the first two firms he visited in making his investigations. Mr Krogh argued that this meant that he must have had ulterior reasons for taking out the Saxonwold post box at a later stage aside from the reasons Denis Goldberg had given in-chief that it was for the purpose of receiving this type of business correspondence and personal letters from his wife in Cape Town. In refuting any sinister inference which could have been drawn from Mr Krogh’s observations Denis Goldberg first stated that he had not lied to the court at all in his evidence-in-chief. He explained that by the time he approached the third foundry owner in Johannesburg he found that the questions he was asking were leading these owners to believe that Denis Goldberg could be seeking information in order to start a rival firm or foundry to compete with them. The fact that he had given them a residential address had aroused these kind of suspicions even further and it was for this reason, explained Denis Goldberg, that he had taken out the post box in Saxonwold and had invented believable back-stories in order to gain the information he needed without his actions being traceable back to himself, his political colleagues, or the Mountain View cottage where he was staying at the time. Denis Goldberg concluded his point by said that he would have taken the post box out sooner had he anticipated this problem at an earlier stage.
Mr Krogh, thereafter, moved on to deal with another aspect of Denis Goldberg’s evidence which the state sort to challenge which was related to the purposes for which the Travallyn property had been purchased. Mr Krogh began dealing with this subject by suggesting that Denis Goldberg was being facetious when he told the court that, in addition to being used as a hideout for MK members and a temporary residence for recruits in transit out the country, the Travallyn property was also going to be used as a poultry farm. Denis Goldberg responded that he was, and still is, being absolutely serious in stating that this was part of the intended purpose of the property as far as he knew at the time he was asked to find and purchase it by Arthur Goldreich. Mr Krogh then put it to Denis Goldberg that Walter Sisulu’s evidence said nothing about a poultry farm but did concede that, in addition to hideout and transit location, the Travallyn property was purchased with the intention of using it as a site for the manufacturing of weapons for guerrilla warfare. Denis Goldberg recalled that Walter Sisulu’s evidence, in this regard, was made in reference to a report which suggested the property be used as a weapons manufactory and which was rejected precisely on the grounds of this particular proposal. He added, as an afterthought, that this report which Walter Sisulu had referred to also discussed the proposed establishment of a poultry farm at Travallyn. At a later stage in proceedings, just before the teatime adjournment, Denis Goldberg explained to Judge De Wet that the proposal was for the poultry farm to act as a cover or a camouflage of the manufacturing which would actually be taking place on the farm.
Despite Denis Goldberg’s confusion on the subject displayed at the end of the previous day’s proceedings, Mr Krogh made his arguments and led his questions on the assumption that Travallyn had been bought by and for Umkhonto we Sizwe. He put it to Denis Goldberg that, “had the scheme been accepted”, it would have been MK which would have embarked upon a campaign of guerrilla warfare aimed at overthrowing the apartheid government and replacing it with a new government. Denis Goldberg replied, “Let’s be careful here” and said that the aim of guerrilla warfare would be “to establish a social system in which everybody would have the vote” and to abolish the colour bar in all its forms. Mr Krogh reasoned that these aims were very similar to those of the Congress Alliance and the SACP and suggested to Denis Goldberg that this question of violence and turning to guerrilla warfare was being discussed widely amongst and between the leading members of these organisations and not just MK. Denis Goldberg replied:
Let’s be clear, what I said in my evidence was that I was not aware, I could not be aware, that sporadic discussions went on between the Umkhonto we Sizwe and the African National Congress. What I said was that I would expect people in the leadership organisations, such as Umkhonto we Sizwe, to discuss this and, should they decide that it would be correct to embark on guerrilla warfare, to discuss this with the major political organisations.
Judge De Wet asked Denis Goldberg directly if the MK had entered into discussions with representatives of other political bodies at the time it began conducting acts of violence. Denis Goldberg answered “I should hope so my lord” which caused Judge De Wet to say, “I don’t care about what you are hopeful about… what did you infer at the time, did you infer that it was discussed?” Denis Goldberg paused for a moment before saying “I can go no further than say I expect that they did”. Mr Krogh then shifted attention significantly and came to deal once again with Denis Goldberg’s experiences of harassment at the hands of the Security Branch police in Cape Town.
In discussing this subject Mr Krogh made the suggestion that the bomb which had exploded in Denis Goldberg’s garden might have been put there by an organisation such as MK engaged in acts of sabotage – using similar materials – in Cape Town at the time. Denis Goldberg told Mr Krogh “I can hardly expect, considering my political background, that Umkhonto or organisations like it would attack me”. Mr Krogh once again suggested that Denis Goldberg was “not serious” and must have been being “facetious” when he suggested in his evidence that he suspected members of the Security Branch to have been responsible for setting off the bomb in his garden. Denis Goldberg told Mr Krogh that he was being absolutely serious spent time describing the severity of the damage which was caused by the explosion and the deadly threat it posed to himself and his family. Mr Krogh used the discussion as a basis launch into dealing with the acts of sabotage committed in Cape Town listed in the indictment for this case. He pointed out that the two of these acts of sabotage had been committed in locations no more than four or five miles from the places where Denis Goldberg and Looksmart Ngudle had been found by the police. However, Mr Krogh did not seem to have anything with which he could back up the sinister inference made by this observation and turned, instead, to a new line of questioning in regard to Arthur Goldreich.
This line of questioning concerned a series of documents which, Denis Goldberg admitted, to have been written in his own handwriting or drafted by him and typed up by Arthur Goldreich. These documents were dealt with in three groups. The first group was comprised of Exhibits T.4 to T.11 which included the Production Requirements report as well as sketches, quotations, and other correspondence to do with Denis Goldberg’s investigations in Johannesburg. The second group was Exhibits T.36 and T.37 which dealt with cost requirements involved in building a workshop. The third and final group included Exhibits T.67, T.73, T.74, and T.83 which included financial receipts, the Housing Committee report, and the document entitled Some Thoughts on the Situation. In dealing with these documents Denis Goldberg made the important claim, once again, that the Travallyn property had been purchased for “political purposes” and not for the manufacturing and storage of explosives. The latter would only have ever taken place in reality if and only if it was decided upon that a programme of guerrilla warfare should be adopted. He added that, although he attempted to be unbiased in presenting the facts of his investigations. It was obvious from his findings that he did not think the programme for guerrilla warfare suggested by Arthur Goldreich was not feasible.
In dealing with Exhibit T.74, entitled “Some Thoughts on the Situation”, Denis Goldberg explained that Arthur Goldreich had showed this document to him sometime in June, 1963, in order to persuade him to stay in South Africa. Denis Goldberg said that the document attempted to provide an analysis in favour of guerrilla warfare as the best possible means to bring about the aims of the NLM within a relatively short period of time in South Africa. Denis Goldberg did not agree with the arguments made in the paper and was this not persuaded by Arthur Goldreich that the best way in which he, Denis Goldberg, could continue to contribute to the struggle for independence was from within the country, operating underground. When Denis Goldberg admitted that Arthur Goldreich told him that this document had been already been presented to his political colleagues – by the man who authored it who was, like Arthur Goldreich, obviously enthusiastic and in favour of the idea of a guerrilla warfare campaign – and was a main source in sparking the general dispute around turning to new modes of violent struggle.
It was on the basis of this admission that Mr Krogh asked Denis Goldberg who these political colleagues of Arthur Goldreich’s were. Denis Goldberg told the court that Arthur Goldreich had not offered the names of his political colleagues and that he “wasn’t interested in knowing” at the time. At this point Judge De Wet injected himself into the conversation and said that he had much difficulty accepting that Denis Goldberg was uninterested in the individuals who would eventually hold the most powerful positions in a new government structure in South Africa – if the aims of the NLM supported by Denis Goldberg were achieved. Denis Goldberg told the court that he was only interested in knowing that those individuals, whom he helped bring to power, shared the same political principles as he did and made effective policies on that basis – aside from that their names or personal histories were, at this stage, unimportant to him. Denis Goldberg then clarified by explaining that he did not ask Arthur Goldreich about his political colleagues or the leaders of the NLM more broadly because “I didn’t want to be in a position where I could perhaps betray them… one never knows how strong one is going to be in a situation of pressure”.
Thereafter, Mr Krogh spent some time dealing with the subject of which vehicles had been driven, bought, and otherwise used, by Denis Goldberg whilst he was in Johannesburg. The junior prosecutor then went on to deal with subject of Denis Goldberg’s occasional visits to Liliesleaf Farm during May and June, 1963. Denis Goldberg explained that he had visited the main house at Liliesleaf Farm on a number of occasions for the purpose of visiting Arthur Goldreich to discuss the progress being made in terms of Denis Goldberg’s investigations and plans to leave the country as well as, according to Denis Goldberg, for the purpose of simply having some friendly company as he was living completely alone at Mountain View at this stage. It was only once the Travallyn property had been purchased, towards the end of June, that Arthur Goldreich took Denis Goldberg to the Thatched Cottage at Liliesleaf Farm for the first time where he met Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, and Ahmed Kathrada. Arthur Goldreich had taken Denis Goldberg to see these men in the outbuildings because they were going to be living with him at the Travallyn hideout – except for Ahmed Kathrada who would be taking over Denis Goldberg’s residence at the Mountain View cottage.
Denis Goldberg then discussed buying furniture and other household items for both the Mountain View and Travallyn properties with money, in the form of cash, which had been given to him, along with the list of required items, by Arthur Goldreich. Denis Goldberg guessed that he spent around £50 in total purchasing a fridge, linen, cutlery, and other things which were necessary to make both the cottage at Mountain View and the house at Travallyn permanent bases to be used for hiding people and sending recruits out of the country. Mr Krogh then asked Denis Goldberg were the money given to him by Arthur Goldreich for the purchase of Travallyn had come from. Denis Goldberg conceded that from their discussions he had guessed that Arthur Goldreich was associated with Umkhonto we Sizwe. Later Denis Goldberg asked him directly if this was in fact the case and Arthur Goldreich confirmed that he was working for MK. Denis Goldberg told the court, however, that he never asked Arthur Goldreich where the money had come from because “It wasn’t my concern. It was on the basis of his association with Umkhonto that I trusted him and I presumed he had got it from the organisation”.
Mr Krogh then put it to Denis Goldberg that, at the time he purchased the Travallyn property for MK, he was well-aware that the organisation was perpetuating acts of sabotage throughout the country. Denis Goldberg conceded that this was true and, before Mr Krogh could continue, Judge De Wet added that Denis Goldberg must have been equally aware at the time that Umkhonto was engaged in sending recruits out of the country for military training. Denis Goldberg admitted that this was also true. Mr Krogh then went on to lead Denis Goldberg in regard to the details of his finding and purchasing the Travallyn property through various estate agents and suggested that the reason Arthur Goldreich had not done this work himself was because he was too busy. Denis Goldberg rejected this suggestion and clarified that the actual reason why Arthur Goldreich had not pursued finding this smallholding was because “he is extremely well-known in Johannesburg” and would have undoubtedly attracted the attention of the Security Branch police. Attention was then shifted by Mr Krogh from Arthur Goldreich in Johannesburg back to Looksmart Ngudle in Cape Town.
Mr Krogh began dealing with this subject by repeating evidence Denis Goldberg had already given in regard to his relationship with Looksmart Ngudle and suggested that the two men were very close personal friends and political colleagues. Denis Goldberg said “We were close associates and I think there was a mutual respect and much more than that, it didn’t go”. Mr Krogh then asked Denis Goldberg if Looksmart Ngudle had been one of his political colleagues in Cape Town who had told him about MK trainees being sent out of the country. Denis Goldberg declined to say whether or not Looksmart Ngudle had been one of the people who had informed him about these processes taking place in the country following the press reports which bought this to the attention of Denis Goldberg for the first time. Mr Krogh then made the point that because Looksmart Ngudle “is no longer with us”, having died in police custody a short while ago, Denis Goldberg must have been refusing to answer this question on some ground other than that which argued that doing so may risk incriminating the person named. Denis Goldberg told Mr Krogh that he was refusing to tell him any of the names of his political colleagues “Because by giving information about any person it can lead to information about other people and I decline to name people with whom I worked politically and who might suffer as a result of my naming them”.
Mr Krogh then asked Denis Goldberg if he knew the state witnesses Isaac Rani and Alfred Jantjies and if they were members of the AYL. Denis Goldberg claimed to have never met either of these men prior to these court proceedings and added that he was not in a position to say whether or not they were AYL members but he would not deny it. Mr Krogh surmised the evidence of these two witnesses, describing their going from Cape Town to Johannesburg and eventually across the border to a military training camp in Tanganyika, and the fact that they claimed that Looksmart Ngudle had been the contact man in Cape Town who made all the arrangements for their departure. Denis Goldberg said, once again, that he was not in a position to say that this was so. Mr Krogh stated that the case was that even if Denis Goldberg did know, as the state suspected he did, he would still refuse to answer the question. Denis Goldberg confirmed that this was true and the junior prosecutor asked Denis Goldberg what he was told, or what he inferred, was going to happen with these recruits once they returned to the country having received military training abroad. Denis Goldberg said that he wasn’t told what was going to happen but, when Judge De Wet asked “Well, isn’t it obvious?”, Denis Goldberg he conceded that he had assumed that they would be incorportated into the existing MK machinery to contribute to committing acts of sabotage. Judge De Wet added that they would undoubtedly also be used for mounting a guerrilla warfare campaign if such a scheme was decided upon. Denis Goldberg agreed with this suggested but also added that their military training could also be put to use as the nucleus of a new national military if a new government was bought to power. Mr Krogh briefly discussed some more points related to this acts of sabotage committed in Cape Town and then resumed his line of questioning concerning Mamre Camp.
Denis Goldberg was asked to go over the daily routine at the camp at Mamre for the court one more time, which he did, repeating most of the evidence he had given in-chief and adding only a few new details about some of the topics discussed in lectures. He told the court that a joint committee between the CPC and AYL had been set up to organise the camp. Denis Goldberg admitted that he was on this committee and insisted that Looksmart Ngudle was not, although, he refused to tell the court the names of any other persons who were on this committee with him. He also admitted that he had asked Cyril Davids to come and give a lecture at the camp on the fundamentals of electricity and said that the two of them had worked out Cyril Davids’ lecture plan before coming to the camp at Mamre. He denied, however, that he had arranged beforehand for Cyril Davids to give a Judo demonstration. Although he could not remember specifically, Denis Goldberg claimed that it was only once they were all at the campsite and it was discovered in casual conversation that Cryil Davids was experienced in Judo that it was decided that he should do a demonstration as part of the recreational activities available to campers.
Mr Krogh then turned attention to the very similar evidence both Cyril Davids and Caswell Mboxela had given in regard to some kind of textbook on guerrilla warfare, associated with Fidel Castro and the Cuban experience, having been read to the campers at Mamre. Denis Goldberg insisted that there were no books at Mamre Camp which dealt specifically with the subject of guerrilla warfare. He argued that the book which these witnesses were referring to was actually the pamphlet entitled “Castro’s Cuba” which had already been handed in to the court and which was in no way a “textbook or manual on guerrilla warfare”. Denis Goldberg admitted that he had personally read this pamphlet aloud to the campers during an evening session around the campfire. Mr Krogh then asked Denis Goldberg a number of questions regarding the assignment of tasks to various groups by the committee, the appointment of group leaders, and the question of discipline at the camp. In particular, Mr Krogh asked Denis Goldberg if there was “anything wrong with the description group leader” to which Denis Goldberg replied, “It’s possibly clumsy… If you are referring to the fact that they were called Sergeants…” Mr Krogh proclaimed “You’re anticipation is remarkable!” to which Denis Goldberg replied “Thank you sir” before going on to say, “Um, there was no specific reason for the choice of the term except that it was convenient”.
When Mr Krogh pushed him to explain the reasons for the use of the word “comrade”, followed by a title denoting hierarchical rank, Denis Goldberg said “The only reason for this is that the term comrade denotes, I think, a relationship of equals and the term of rank to indicate his temporary authority at this particular function or occasion”. When Mr Krog asked why they had not simply used an innocent common phrase such as “Oom so-and-so” to denote equality amongst members of the NLM Denis Goldberg responded that it would be undignified and inappropriate to do so, and added “we are serious politicians and we are dignified!” Denis Goldberg admitted that in Cape Town he was well-known as “Comrade Denis” amongst his close friends and political colleagues from numerous organisations in the NLM. This was why, according to Denis Goldberg, it was no great feat of creativity or imagination when the irritated campers nicknamed him Comrade Commandant after he instructed that the tents be taken down and moved upon his arrival at the campsite in Mamre.
At this point Judge De Wet called for court to be adjourned until 10am the following morning.
Sources
Dictabelts: (Vol.54/Belt 147e) (Vol.54/Belt 148e) (Vol.54/Belt 149e) (Vol.54/Belt 150e). (Vol.54/Belt 151e).
Percy Yutar Papers:
Handwritten notes from the prosecution for 14th May, 1964, (Ms.385/36/1).
File of Miscellaneous Documents: Goldberg, No.3 – General. (MS.385/31/2/4).
File of Miscellaneous Documents: Goldberg, No.3 – Mamre. (MS.385/31/2/5).
File of Miscellaneous Documents: Goldberg, No.3 – Preparation - Sabotage. (MS.385/31/2/6).
File containing details about Accused Nos. 1-7: TS, Accused No.3 [Denis Goldberg] (MS.385/31/3/3) and (MS.385/31/3/4).
Key Words
Denis Goldberg, Mamre Camp, Looksmart Ngudle, COD, AYL, CPC, MK, Arthur Goldreich, Guerrilla Warfare, Johannesburg, Liliesleaf Farm, Rivonia Raid, Travallyn, Mountain View.
This mp3 file is watermarked to protect copyright. Please contact the National Film, Video and Sound Archives to get full access.