< Back

The Sun will Rise: Statements from the Dock by Southern African Political
Prisoners

Contents

  • Introduction
  • Robert Sobukwe
  • Nelson Mandela
  • Walter Sisulu
  • Elias Motsoaledi
  • Andrew Mlangeni
  • Wilton Mkwayi
  • Bram Fischer
  • Toivo ja Toivo
  • Eliaser Tuhadeleni
  • James April
  • Mosioua Lekota
  • Maitshe Mokoape
  • Raymond Suttner
  • Mosima Sexwale
  • Naledi Tsiki
  • Martin Ramokgadi
  • Isaac Seko
  • Stanley Nkosi
  • Petrus Mothlanthe

Introduction

This collection of statements made during political trials since 1960
testifies to the high courage, determination and humanity which distinguish the
struggle for liberation and for a just society in South Africa and Namibia.

The earliest of the statements in the collection is by Robert Sobukwe, late
leader of the Pan-Africanist Congress. It expresses a theme running through all
the statements: "The history of the human race has been a struggle for the
removal of oppression, and we would have failed had we not made our
contribution. We are glad we made it".

Nelson Mandela`s powerful statement in Pretoria`s Palace of Justice on 20
April 1964, when he and other members of the African National Congress and the
Congress Alliance were in the dock in the Rivonia Trial, has become an historic
document. Two years later Bram Fischer QC, the advocate who had led the Rivonia
defence, was himself on trial in the same court. A large part of the statements
made by these two men is reproduced here, along with less well known statements
by others on trial during the 1960s. This was the period immediately after the
ANC and the PAC were outlawed. The liberation movement`s long-maintained policy
of non-violence was finally abandoned for sabotage and armed struggle.
Wide-spread arrests and 90-day detention, involving solitary confinement and
torture, culminated in major trials as a result of which many of the top
leadership of the ANC were swept away to life imprisonment. From innumerable
small trials, particularly in the Eastern Cape, hundreds of political prisoners
were taken to Robben Island or mainland jails.

Also from the 1960s come the remarkable and moving statements by Herman ja
Toivo and Eliaser Tuhadeleni, both of the South West Africa People`s
Organisation (SWAPO of Namibia) whose words speak for the many Namibian
political prisoners on Robben Island.

Guerilla activity in South Africa which increased in the latter part of the
1970s is represented by James April`s statement in 1971.

The beginning of the 1970s also saw the emergence of the Black Consciousness
movement. Although it functioned openly, its leaders were nevertheless brought
to trial under the Terrorism Act. Included in this collection are statements
from two of the accused in the SASO (South African Students Organisation) trial,
Mosioua Lekota and Maitshe Mokoape. They outline the movement`s aims. They also
demonstrate how the state abused language when it described their activities as
"terrorism". It was in this trial that Steve Biko testified for the
defence, but since he was not among the accused he is not quoted in this
collection.

In June 1976 the school children of Soweto rose in protest against Bantu
Education, provoked by the imposition in schools of that symbol of oppression,
the Afrikaans language. Police shot dead Hector Petersen, 13 years old, and many
other children. The protest broadened to one against the whole apartheid system.
From Soweto demonstrations swept the country. In sixteen months there were 700
publicly recorded deaths, mainly young people shot by police. Hundreds of school
children were taken into detention--some were still in detention 18 months
later, and some were never seen again by their families.

In the two years after June 1976 42,000 people, 9,000 of them under 18, were
prosecuted for such offences as public violence and arson. Few statements are
available from these trials. Many were in the Port Elizabeth area where, as in
the 1960s, trials were held virtually in camera in local courts, some even
taking place in police stations. We have no statements from these trials, and
none were made in the trial of members of the Soweto Students Representative
Council--ten young men and one young woman--which began in September 1978. They
were charged under a law, not invoked for thirty years, against
"sedition". They were accused of subverting the authority of the
State, and of orchestrating the protests, stay-away strikes and massive
demonstrations in the Johannesburg area between June 1976 and October 1977. All
were convicted. Although some had their sentences partly suspended, they had
already been detained for more than a year.

Since statements in trials during this period were rarely allowed or
published, the behaviour of the accused and their supporters at their trials
must speak for them: who better to describe it than the Minister of Justice
himself? Demonstrations at courts, he told Parliament in May 1978, had increased
to a perturbing extent. Supporters of the accused "take up their seats in
the courtroom in good time . . . the accused then enter the hall singing and
with clenched fists, take their places in the dock, and, standing, turn to the
audience, whereupon all of them sing inflammatory songs. Brief speeches are also
made. Only when the tumult has subsided can the court`s session commence. When
the hearing is adjourned, the accused and the audience all leave the courtroom
singing, and the entire procedure is repeated with every adjournment.... The
supporters frequently continue their activities outside the court building and
in the adjoining streets. To accompany the singing and the clenched fist
salutes, there is dancing, slogans are shouted and posters are displayed for the
express purpose of attracting the attention of the press, film and television
photographers".

With the increase in militant action against apartheid there was renewed
activity by the banned organisations. In 1977 and 1978 there were several trials
of ANC and PAC members in which younger people, some of them trained guerillas,
were in the dock alongside veterans who had already served sentences on Robben
Island, and who, far from being dispirited or deterred by their imprisonment,
had continued their resistance.

Among those veterans were Harry Gwala and four other members of the ANC who,
in Pietermaritzburg in 1977, were again sentenced, this time to life
imprisonment. Unfortunately no statements were available from their trial.

Another veteran from Robben Island was the 66-year-old PAC leader, Zephania
Mothopeng, who with seventeen other members of the PAC, was sentenced to a
further fifteen years. During the exceptionally long trial in the country town
of Bethal, Mothopeng was among those who alleged police torture; four
"co-conspirators" had died in detention. As the accused did not
recognise the court no statements were made.

However there are statements in this collection from the trial of the
"Pretoria Twelve" in 1978 which were made by young recruits to the
ANC, who were accused together with older members.

Significantly, the State described the aims of the ANC in one of the 95
trials held in 1977 as: "Overthrowing the present government; so-called
equal rights and opportunities for all people of the Republic in a multi-racial
unsegregated society and a system of government based on the so-called right of
every man and woman to stand as a candidate and to vote for all bodies which
make laws, regard less of race, colour or sex." It is because legitimate
political activity in South Africa is prohibited and made a crime in this
way--and because of the brutal police attacks on demonstrators and school
children--that young recruits rallied to the ANC and PAC for military training
outside South Africa, to be infiltrated back as guerillas.

Solomon Mahlangu was amongst those who became guerillas with the ANC. At the
age of twenty-one he was to make the supreme sacrifice. On his mother`s last
visit to him in Pretoria Prison, he said to her: "Tell my people that I
love them and that they must continue the struggle". He was hanged on 6
April 1979.

In November 1979 James Mange, another young guerilla, on trial for high
treason with 11 ANC comrades, was sentenced to death. On appeal, against a
background of an international campaign to save James Mange`s life, sentence was
commuted to 20 years imprisonment. The accused had refused to take part in the
trial after the court ruled that the hearing would be in camera--in a statement
they argued that an open trial was essential since treason was a charge
affecting the whole of society, "and to exclude the public is to exclude
the people affected by what the ANC seeks to achieve". When sentence was
pronounced, the twelve accused displayed placards which read: "APARTHEID IS
A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY". "APARTHEID IS HIGH TREASON"
"NEVER ON OUR KNEES".

Certainty in the ultimate success of the struggle is repeatedly expressed by
those accused in South Africa`s political trials. Bram Fischer, who died in
captivity in 1975, voiced that certainty in his statement from the dock, quoting
the words of President Kruger*: "Whether we win or whether we die, freedom
will rise in South Africa, like the sun from the morning clouds".

Mary Benson

London.

* See Bram Fischer

Robert Sobukwe

Son of a Methodist preacher, Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe was born at Graaff
Reinet in the Cape in 1924. Educated at Healdtown mission school and Fort Hare
College he was a militant youth leader. In 1952 he took part in the Defiance
Campaign and was dismissed from his job as a teacher. He played a leading role
in the founding of the Pan Africanist Congress, the breakaway movement from the
ANC, and in 1959 was elected its President. He resigned from a lectureship in
African languages at the University of the Witwatersrand to lead the anti-pass
laws protest in 1960. Sharpeville was but one of the areas where the
demonstrators gathered for the culmination of the protests on March 21. Sobukwe
was arrested in Orlando with 22 others and charged with inciting a campaign
against the pass laws and/or inciting the destruction of reference books.

In conducting the defence in the Johannesburg Regional Court he explained
that he and the other accused had refused to enter a plea because the law under
which they were charged was made exclusively by and for the white man. They did
not see how justice could be done.

In his statement Sobukwe said:

"The chief aims of the PAC are the complete overthrow of white
domination and the establishment of a non-racial democracy in South Africa as
well as throughout the whole of Africa.

We regard it as our historic role to contribute towards a United States of
Africa from Cape to Cairo, Morocco to Madagascar.

For the same reason we stand for government of the African, by the African
and for the African, with everybody owing his allegiance to Africa and
prepared also to accept the rule of the African majority.

The object of the PAC is to draw up a programme of action which will be
faithfully pursued instead of meekly reacting to the flow of white legislation
from Parliament.

The PAC decided to bring about the immediate abolition of the pass laws
because it was the immediate need of the African people. It was their
demand".

On 4 May 1960, in mitigation of sentence he said:

"It will be remembered that we refused to plead to the charges against
us.

We felt we had no moral obligation to obey the laws made by a white
minority. Without wishing to impugn the personal honour and integrity of the
magistrate, an unjust law cannot be applied justly.

We have said we believe in the human race and that alone. The history of
the human race has been a struggle for the removal of mental, moral and
spiritual oppression, and we would have failed had we not made our
contribution to the struggle. We are glad we made it.

If we are sent to jail there will always be others to take our place. We
are not afraid to face the consequence of our actions and it is not our
intention to plead for mercy".

Sentenced to three years` imprisonment, Sobukwe was, on his release in 1963,
promptly detained on Robben Island by an act of Parliament for a further six
years. From 1969 he was restricted by bans and confined to the Kimberley
district. When he applied for an exit permit to go into exile in 1971 he was
refused the necessary permission. In Kimberley he qualified as an attorney and
many who visited him there spoke of his unfailing courage and magnanimity. By
1977 he was seriously ill with cancer of the lungs and on 27 February 1978 he
died in Kimberley hospital.

Nelson Mandela

A member of the royal family of the Tembu people, Mandela was born in 1918
and studied at Fort Hare College. Subsequently, in Johannesburg, he studied law
and joined other young African nationalists in galvanising the African National
Congress into militant action. He was national volunteer-in-chief of the
Defiance Campaign in 1952, and one of the 156 accused in the Treason Trial of
1956-1960, at one stage leading the defence. Elected organiser of the stay-at
home protest in 1961, he went underground and during two years evaded an
intensive police search. In 1962 he made a secret tour of heads of state in
Africa and met leading politicians in London. Soon after his return to South
Africa he was captured and brought to trial, charged with inciting Africans to
strike and leaving South Africa without a valid travel document.

To the court in Pretoria he said:

"I feel oppressed by the atmosphere of white domination that lurks all
around in this courtroom. Somehow this atmosphere calls to mind the inhuman
injustices caused to my people outside this courtroom by this same white
domination".

Conducting his own defence, Mandela cross-examined the private secretary to
the Prime Minister, Dr. H. F. Verwoerd, concerning the Prime Minister`s failure
to respond to African grievances, and said:

"South Africa and the world know that during the last thirteen years
your government has subjected us to merciless and arbitrary rule. Hundreds of
our people have been banned and confined to certain areas. Scores have been
banished to remote parts of the country, and many arrested and jailed for a
multitude of offences. It has become extremely difficult to hold meetings, and
freedom of speech has been drastically curtailed. During the last twelve
months we have gone through a period of grim dictatorship, during which
seventy-five people were killed and hundreds injured while peacefully
demonstrating against passes.

Political organizations were declared unlawful and thousands flung into
jail without trial".

In recounting the history of African protest against apartheid, and his own
role as a leader, Mandela said:

"I regard it as a duty which I owed, not just to my people, but also
to my profession, to the practice of law, and to justice for all mankind, to
cry out against this discrimination which is essentially unjust.... I believed
that in taking up a stand against this injustice I was upholding the dignity
of what should be an honourable profession.... The law as it is applied, the
law as it has been developed over a long period of history, and especially the
law as it is written and designed by the Nationalist government, is a law
which, in our view, is immoral, unjust, and intolerable. Our consciences
dictate that we must protest against it, that we must oppose it, and that we
must attempt to alter it".

Mandela reminded the court that the stay-at-home strike in 1961 had been
called in protest against the Government`s decision to proclaim a republic,
after receiving a mandate from a section of the white population. This African
demonstration, which was to be peaceful, was treated by the Government as though
it was a preparation for civil war:

"The Government set out from the beginning of this campaign, not to
treat with us, not to heed us, not to talk to us, but rather to present us as
wild dangerous revolutionaries, intent on disorder and riot, incapable of
being dealt with in any way save by mustering an overwhelming force against us
and the implementation of every possible forcible means, legal and illegal, to
suppress us.... We have been conditioned by the history of white governments
in this country to accept the fact that Africans, when they make their demands
strongly and power fully enough to have some chance of success, will be met by
force and terror on the part of the Government. This is not something we have
taught the African people, this is something the African people have learned
from their own bitter experience. We learned it from each successive
government".

He, himself, in order to continue his work of organising his people had been
forced to go underground.

"I was made, by the law, a criminal, not because of what I had done,
but because of what I stood for, because of what I thought, because of my con
science.... It has not been easy for me ... to separate myself from my wife
and children, to say goodbye to the good old days when, at the end of a
strenuous day at an office, I could look forward to joining my family at the
dinner-table, and instead to take up the life of a man hunted continuously by
the police, living separated from those who are closest to me, in my own
country, facing continually the hazards of detection and of arrest.... No man
in his right senses would voluntarily choose such a life . . . but there comes
a time, as it came in my life, when a man is denied the right to live a normal
life, when he can only live the life of an outlaw because the government has
so decreed....

I am prepared to pay the penalty even though I know how bitter and
desperate is the situation of an African in the prisons of this country. I
have been in these prisons and I know how gross is the discrimination, even
behind the prison walls, against Africans, how much worse is the treatment
meted out to African prisoners than that accorded to whites....

When my sentence has been completed, I will still be moved as men are
always moved, by their consciences; I will still be moved by my dislike of the
race discrimination against my people when I come out from serving my
sentence, to take up again, as best I can, the struggle for the removal of
those injustices until they are finally abolished once and for all".

In dealing with the charge relating to his having left South Africa without a
passport, he said:

"I did not apply for a passport because I knew very well that it would
not be granted to me. After all, the Nationalist Party government, throughout
the four teen years of its oppressive rule, had refused permission to leave
the country to many African scholars, educationalists, artists, sportsmen, and
clerics, and I wished to waste none of my time by applying for a passport.

The tour of the continent made a forceful impression on me. For the first
time in my life I was a free man; free from white oppression, from the idiocy
of apartheid and racial arrogance, from police molestation, from humiliation
and indignity. Wherever I went I was treated like a human being.... In the
African states, I saw black and white mingling peacefully and happily in
hotels and cinemas, trading in the same areas, using the same public transport
and living in the same residential areas.

I had to return home to report to my colleagues and to share my impressions
and experiences with them.

I have done my duty to my people and to South Africa. I have no doubt that
posterity will pronounce that I was innocent and that the criminals who should
have been brought before this Court are the members of the Verwoerd
government".

Mandela was sentenced to three years` imprisonment for incitement to strike
and two years for leaving the country without a valid permit. While he was
serving the sentence in Pretoria Central Prison he was again brought to trial
along with eight other men on charges of sabotage. This was the celebrated
Rivonia Trial, which opened in Pretoria in October, 1963.

Rivonia Trial

On Monday, 20 April 1964, in Pretoria`s Palace of Justice, Nelson Mandela
made a statement from the dock:

"I am the First Accused.

I hold a Bachelor`s Degree in Arts and practised as an attorney in
Johannesburg for a number of years in partnership with Oliver Tambo. I am a
convicted prisoner serving five years for leaving the country without a permit
and for inciting people to go on strike at the end of May 196 1.

At the outset, I want to say that the suggestion made by the State in its
opening that the struggle in South Africa is under the influence of foreigners
or communists is wholly incorrect. I have done whatever I have done, both as
an individual and as a leader of my people, because of my experience in South
Africa and my own proudly-felt African background, and not because of what any
outsider might have said.

In my youth in the Transkei, I listened to the elders of my tribe telling
stories of the old days. Amongst the tales they related to me were those of
wars fought by our ancestors in defence of the fatherland. The names of
Dingane and Bambata, Hintsa and Makana, Squngthi and Dalasile, Moshoeshoe and
Sekhukhuni, were praised as the glory of the entire African nation. I hoped
then that life might offer me the opportunity to serve my people and make my
own humble contribution to their freedom struggle. This is what has motivated
me in all I have done in relation to the charges made against me in this
case....

. . . Some of the things so far told to the Court are true and some are
untrue. I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in
a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned
it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that
had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation and oppression of my
people by the whites.

I admit immediately that I was one of the persons who helped to form
Umkhonto We Sizwe, and that I played a prominent role in its affairs until I
was arrested in August 1962.

. . . I and the others who started the organization did so for two reasons.
Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the
African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership
was given to canalise and control the feelings of our people, there would be
outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and
hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even
by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to
the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white
supremacy....

But the violence which we chose to adopt was not terrorism. We who formed
Umkhonto were all members of the African National Congress, and had behind us
the ANC tradition of non-violence and negotiation as a means of solving
political disputes. We believed that South Africa belonged to all the people
who lived in it, and not to one group, be it black or white. We did not want
an inter racial war, and tried to avoid it to the last minute....

The African National Congress was formed in 1912 to defend the rights of
the African people which had been seriously curtailed by the South Africa Act,
and which were then being threatened by the Native Land Act. For thirty-seven
years--that is, until 1 949--it adhered strictly to a constitutional struggle.
It put forward demands and resolutions; it sent delegations to the Government
in the belief that African grievances could be settled through peaceful
discussion and that Africans could advance gradually to full political rights.
But white Governments remained unmoved, and the rights of Africans became less
instead of becoming greater. In the words of my leader, Chief Luthuli, who
became President of the ANC in 1952, and who was later awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize:

`Who will deny that thirty years of my life have been spent knocking in
vain, patiently, moderately and modestly at a closed and barred door? What
have been the fruits of moderation? The past thirty years have seen the
greatest number of laws restricting our rights and progress, until today we
have reached a stage where we have almost no rights at all.... `

The ANC launched the Defiance Campaign, in which I was placed in charge of
volunteers. This campaign was based on the principles of passive resistance.
More than 8,500 people defied apartheid laws and went to gaol. Yet there was
not a single instance of violence in the course of this campaign on the part
of any defier. I and nineteen colleagues were convicted for the role which we
played in organizing the campaign, but our sentences were suspended mainly
because the judge found that discipline and non-violence had been stressed
throughout....

In 1956, one hundred and fifty-six leading members of the Congress
Alliance, including myself, were arrested on a charge of high treason and
charges under the Suppression of Communism Act. The non-violent policy of the
ANC was put in issue by the State, but when the Court gave judgement some five
years later, it found that the ANC did not have a policy of violence. We were
acquitted on all counts, which included a count that the ANC sought to set up
a communist state in place of the existing regime. The government has always
sought to have all its opponents as communists. This allegation has been
repeated in the present case, but as I will show, the ANC is not, and never
has been, a communist organization.

In 1960, there was the shooting at Sharpeville, which resulted in the
proclamation of a state of emergency and the declaration of the ANC as an
unlawful organization. My colleagues and I, after careful consideration,
decided that we would not obey this decree.... The ANC refused to dissolve,
but instead went underground. We believed it was our duty to preserve this
organization which had been built up with almost fifty years of unremitting
toil. I have no doubt that no self-respecting white political organization
would disband itself if declared illegal by a government in which it had no
say.

In 1960 the government held a referendum which led to the establishment of
the Republic. Africans, who constituted approximately 70 per cent of the
population of South Africa, were not entitled to vote, and were not even
consulted about the proposed constitutional change. All of us were
apprehensive of our future under the proposed White Republic, and a resolution
was taken to hold an All-In African Conference to call for a National
Convention, and to organize mass demonstrations on the eve of the unwanted
Republic, if the Government failed to call the Convention. The Conference was
attended by Africans of various political persuasions. I was the Secretary of
the Conference and under took to be responsible for organizing the national
stay-at-home which was subsequently called to coincide with the declaration of
the Republic. As all strikes by Africans are illegal, the persons organizing
such a strike must avoid arrest. I was chosen to be this person, and
consequently I had to leave my home and family and my practice and go into
hiding to avoid arrest.

The stay-at-home, in accordance with ANC policy, was to be a peaceful
demonstration. Careful instructions were given to organizers and members to
avoid any recourse to violence. The Government`s answer was to introduce new
and harsher laws, to mobilise its armed forces, and to send Saracens, armoured
vehicles and soldiers into the townships in a massive show of force designed
to intimidate the people....

What were we, the leaders of our people, to do? Were we to give in to the
show of force and the implied threat against future action, or were we to
fight it, and if so, how?

We had no doubt that we had to continue the fight. Anything else would have
been abject surrender. Our problem was . . . how to continue the fight? We of
the ANC had always stood for a non-racial democracy, and we shrank from any
action which might drive the races further apart than they already were. But
the hard facts were that fifty years of non-violence had brought the African
people nothing but more and more repressive legislation, and fewer and fewer
rights. It may not be easy for this Court to understand, but it is a fact that
for a long time the people had been talking of violence--of the day when they
would fight the white man and win back their country, and we, the leaders of
the ANC, had nevertheless always prevailed upon them to avoid violence and to
pursue peaceful methods. When some of us discussed this in May and June of
1961, it could not be denied that our policy to achieve a non-racial state by
non-violence had achieved nothing, and that our followers were beginning to
lose confidence in this policy and were developing disturbing ideas of
terrorism.

It must not be forgotten that by this time violence had, in fact, become a
feature of the South African political scene. There had been violence in 1957
when the women of Zeerust were ordered to carry passes; there was violence in
1958 with the enforcement of cattle culling in Sekhukhuniland; there was
violence in 1959 when the people of Cato Manor protested against pass raids;
there was violence in 1960 when the Government attempted to impose Bantu
Authorities in Pondoland. Thirty-nine Africans died in these disturbances. In
1961 there had been riots in Warmbaths, and all this time the Transkei had
been a seething mass of unrest. Each disturbance pointed clearly to the
inevitable growth among Africans of the belief that violence was the only way
out--it showed that a Government which uses force to maintain its rule teaches
the oppressed to use force to oppose it. Already small groups had risen in the
urban areas and were spontaneously making plans for violent forms of political
struggle.

There now arose a danger that these groups would adopt terrorism against
Africans, as well as whites, if not properly directed....

After a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I and
some colleagues came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was
inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue
preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the Government met our
peaceful demands with force....

Umkhonto We Sizwe

In the Manifesto of Umkhonto published on 16 December 1961, we said:

`The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two
choices--submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not
submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in
defence of our people, our future and our freedom`.

. . . Umkhonto was formed in November 1961. When we took this decision, and
subsequently formulated our plans, the African National Congress heritage of
non-violence and racial harmony was very much with us. We felt that the
country was drifting towards a civil war in which blacks and whites would
fight each other. We viewed the situation with alarm. Civil war could mean the
destruction of what the ANC stood for; with civil war, racial peace would be
more difficult than ever to achieve. We already have examples in South African
history of the results of war. It has taken more than fifty years for the
scars of the South African War to disappear. How much longer would it take to
eradicate the scars of inter-racial civil war, which could not be fought
without a great loss of life on both sides ? . . .

Four forms of violence are possible . . . sabotage . . . guerrilla warfare
. . . terrorism and . . . open revolution. We chose to adopt the first method
and to exhaust it before taking any other decision....

Sabotage did not involve loss of life, and it offered the best hope for
future race relations.

We believed that South Africa depended to a large extent on foreign capital
and foreign trade. We felt that planned destruction of power plants, and
interference with rail and telephone communications would tend to scare away
capital from the country, make it more difficult for goods from the industrial
areas to reach the seaports on schedule, and would in the long run be a heavy
drain on the economic life of the country, thus compelling the voters of the
country to reconsider their position.

Attacks on the economic lifelines of the country were to be linked with
sabotage on Government buildings and other symbols of apartheid . . . strict
instructions were given to Umkhonto`s members right from the start that on no
account were they to injure or kill people in planning or carrying out
operations....

Umkhonto had its first operation on 16 December 1961, when Government
buildings in Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Durban were attacked. The
selection of targets is proof of the policy to which I have referred. Had we
intended to attack life we would have selected targets where people
congregated and not empty buildings and power stations....

The response to our actions and Manifesto among the white population was
characteristically violent. The Government threatened to take strong action
and called upon its supporters to stand firm and to ignore the demands of the
Africans. The whites failed to respond by suggesting change; they responded to
our call by suggesting the laager.

In contrast the response of the Africans was one of encouragement. Suddenly
there was hope again. Things were happening, people in the townships became
eager for political news. A great deal of enthusiasm was generated by the
initial successes and people began to speculate on how soon freedom would be
obtained.

But we in Umkhonto weighed up the white response with anxiety.... The
whites and blacks were moving into separate camps and the prospects of
avoiding a civil war were made less. The white newspapers carried reports that
sabotage would be punished by death. If this was so, how could we continue to
keep Africans away from terrorism ?

How many more Sharpevilles could the country stand without violence and
terror becoming the order of the day? . . .

Experience convinced us that rebellion would offer the Government limitless
opportunities for the indiscriminate slaughter of our people. But it was
precisely because the soil of South Africa is already drenched with the blood
of innocent Africans that we felt it our duty to make preparations as a
long-term undertaking to use force in order to defend ourselves against
force.... The fight which held out the best prospects for us and the least
risk of life to both sides was guerrilla warfare....

All whites undergo compulsory military training, but no such training is
given to Africans. It was in our view essential to build up a nucleus of
trained men . . . to provide leadership ... required if guerrilla warfare
started.... It was also necessary to build up a nucleus of men trained in
civil administration and other professions, so that Africans would be equipped
to participate in the government of this country as soon as they were allowed
to do so.

At this stage it was decided that I should attend the Conference of the Pan
African Freedom Movement for Central, East and Southern Africa, which was to
be held early in 1962 in Addis Ababa and, because of our need for preparation,
it was also decided that, after the Conference, I would undertake a tour of
the African states with a view to obtaining facilities for the training of
soldiers and that I would also solicit scholarships for the higher education
of matriculated Africans. Training in both fields would be necessary, even if
changes came about by peaceful means. Administrators would be necessary who
would be willing and able to administer a non-racial State and so would men be
necessary to control the army and police force of such a State....

My tour was a success. Wherever I went I met sympathy for our cause and
promises of help. All Africa was united against the stand of white South
Africa, and even in London, I was received with great sympathy by political
leaders....

I started to make a study of the art of war and revolution and, whilst
abroad, underwent a course in military training. If there was to be guerrilla
warfare, I wanted to be able to stand and fight with my people and to share
the hazards of war with them.... I approached this question as every African
nationalist should do. I was completely objective.... I attempted to examine
all types of authority on the subject--from the East and from the West, going
back to the classic work of Clausewitz, and covering such a variety as Mao
Tse-tung and Che Guevara on the one hand, and the writings on the Anglo-Boer
War on the other....

I also made arrangements for our recruits to undergo military training....

Another of the allegations made by the State is that the aims and objects
of the African National Congress and the Communist Party are the same.... The
allegation as to the ANC is false. This is an old allegation which was
disproved at the Treason Trial....

The ideological creed of the ANC is, and always has been, the creed of
African nationalism. It is not the concept of African nationalism expressed in
the cry, `Drive the white man into the sea`. The African nationalism for which
the ANC stands is the concept of freedom and fulfilment for the African people
in their own land. The most important political document ever adopted by the
ANC is the `Freedom Charter`. It is by no means a blueprint for a socialist
state. It calls for redistribution, but not nationalisation, of land; it
provides for nationalisation of mines, banks and monopoly industry, because
big monopolies are owned by one race only, and without such nationalisation
racial domination would be perpetuated despite the spread of political
power....

As far as the Communist Party is concerned, and if I understand its policy
correctly, it stands for the establishment of a State based on the principles
of Marxism. Although it is prepared to work for the Freedom Charter as a short
term solution to the problems created by white supremacy, it regards the
Freedom Charter as the beginning , and not the end, of its programme.

The ANC, unlike the Communist Party, admitted Africans only as members. Its
chief goal was, and is, for the African people to win unity and full political
rights. The Communist Party`s main aim, on the other hand, was to remove the
capitalists and to replace them with a working-class Government. The Communist
Party sought to emphasize class distinctions, whilst the ANC seeks to
harmonise them. This is a vital distinction.

It is true that there has often been close co-operation between the ANC and
the Communist Party. But co-operation is merely proof of a common goal--in
this case the removal of white supremacy--and is not proof of a complete
community of interests.

The history of the world is full of similar examples. Perhaps the most
striking illustration is to be found in the co-operation between Great
Britain, the United States of America and the Soviet Union in the fight
against Hitler. Nobody but Hitler would have dared to suggest that such
co-operation turned Churchill or Roosevelt into communists or communist tools,
or that Britain and America were working to bring about a communist world.

Another instance of such co-operation is to be found precisely in Umkhonto.
Shortly after MK was constituted, I was informed by some of its members that
the Communist Party would support Umkhonto, and this then occurred. At a later
stage the support was made openly....

I joined the ANC in 1944, and in my younger days I held the view that the
policy of admitting communists to the ANC, and the close co-operation which
existed at times on specific issues between the ANC and the Communist Party,
would lead to a watering down of the concept of African nationalism. At that
stage I was a member of the ANC Youth League, and was one of a group which
moved for the expulsion of communists from the ANC. This proposal was heavily
defeated. Amongst those who voted against the proposal were some of the most
conservative sections of African political opinion. They defended the policy
on the ground that . . . the ANC was formed and built up, not as a political
party with one school of political thought, but as a Parliament of the African
people, accommodating people of various political convictions, all united by
the common goal of national liberation. I was eventually won over to this
point of view and I have upheld it ever since.

It is perhaps difficult for white South Africans, with an ingrained
prejudice against communism, to understand why experienced African politicians
so readily accept communists as their friends. But to us the reason is
obvious. Theoretical differences amongst those fighting against oppression is
a luxury we cannot afford at this stage. What is more, for many decades
communists were the only political group in South Africa who were prepared to
treat Africans as human beings and their equals, who were prepared to eat with
us, talk with us, live with us and work with us. They were the only political
group who were prepared to work with the Africans for the attainment of
political rights and a stake in society. Because of this, there are many
Africans who, today, tend to equate freedom with communism. They are supported
in this belief by a legislature which brands all exponents of democratic
government and African freedom as communists and bans many of them (who are
not communists) under the Suppression of Communism Act. Although I have never
been a member of the Communist Party, I myself have been named under that
pernicious Act because of the role I played in the Defiance Campaign. I have
also been banned and imprisoned under that Act....

In the international field, communist countries have always come to our
aid. In the United Nations and other councils of the world, the communist bloc
has supported the Afro-Asian struggle against colonialism and often seems to
be more sympathetic to our plight than some of the Western powers.

My own position

I turn now to my own position.... I have always regarded myself, in the
first place, as an African patriot. After all, I was born in Umtata, forty-six
years ago. My guardian was my cousin, who was the acting paramount chief of
Tembuland, and I am related both to the present paramount chief of Tembuland,
Sabata Dalindyebo, and to Kaizer Matanzima, the Chief Minister of the
Transkei.

Today I am attracted by the idea of a classless society, an attraction
which springs in part from Marxist reading and, in part, from my admiration of
the structure and organization of early African societies in this country. The
land, then the main means of production, belonged to the tribe. There were no
rich or poor and there was no exploitation.

It is true, as I have already stated, that I have been influenced by
Marxist thought. But this is also true of many of the leaders of the new
independent States. Such widely different persons as Gandhi, Nehru, Nkrumah
and Nasser all acknowledge this fact. We all accept the need for some form of
socialism to enable our people to catch up with the advanced countries of this
world and to overcome their legacy of extreme poverty. But this does not mean
we are Marxists.

Indeed, for my own part, I believe that it is open to debate whether the
Communist Party has any specific role to play at this particular stage of our
political struggle. The basic task at the present moment is the removal of
race discrimination and the attainment of democratic rights on the basis of
the Freedom Charter. In so far as that Party furthers this task, I welcome its
assistance. I realize that it is one of the means by which people of all races
can be drawn into our struggle.

From my reading of Marxist literature and from conversations with Marxists,
I have gained the impression that communists regard the parliamentary system
of the West as undemocratic and reactionary. But, on the contrary, I am an
admirer of such a system.

The Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights and the Bill of Rights are
documents which are held in veneration by democrats throughout the world.

I have great respect for British political institutions, and for the
country`s system of justice.... The American Congress, that country`s doctrine
of separation of powers, as well as the independence of its judiciary, arouse
in me similar sentiments.

I have been influenced in my thinking by both West and East. All this has
led me to feel that in my search for a political formula, I should be
absolutely impartial and objective. I should tie myself to no particular
system of society other than that of socialism. I must leave myself free to
borrow the best from the West and from the East....

As I understand the State case . . . the suggestion is that Umkhonto was
the inspiration of the Communist Party which sought, by playing upon imaginary
grievances, to enrol the African people into an army which ostensibly was to
fight for African freedom, but in reality (would be) fighting for a communist
state.... The suggestion is preposterous. Umkhonto was formed by Africans to
further their struggle for freedom in their own land....

Our fight is against real, and not imaginary, hardships, or to use the
language of the State Prosecutor, `so-called hardships`. Basically, we fight
against two features which are the hallmarks of African life in South Africa
and which are entrenched by legislation which we seek to have repealed. These
are poverty and lack of human dignity, and we do not need communists or
so-called `agitators` to teach us about these things.

South Africa is the richest country in Africa and could be one of the
richest countries in the world. But it is a land of extremes and remarkable
contrasts. The whites enjoy what may well be the highest standard of living in
the world, whilst Africans live in poverty and misery. Forty per cent of the
Africans live in hopelessly over-crowded and, in some cases, drought-stricken
reserves where soil erosion and the overworking of the soil make it impossible
for them to live properly off the land. Thirty per cent are labourers, labour
tenants and squatters on white farms and work and live under conditions
similar to those of the serfs of the Middle Ages. The other thirty per cent
live in towns where they have developed economic and social habits which bring
them closer in many respects to white standards. Yet most Africans, even in
this group, are impoverished by low incomes and the high cost of living....
Poverty goes hand in hand with malnutrition and disease....

There are two ways to break out of poverty. The first is by formal
education, and the second is by the worker acquiring a greater skill at his
work and thus higher wages. As far as Africans are concerned, both these
avenues of advancement are deliberately curtailed by legislation.

The Government often answers its critics by saying that Africans in South
Africa are economically better off than the inhabitants of the other countries
in Africa. I do not know whether this statement is true and doubt whether any
comparison can be made without having regard to the cost of living index in
such countries. But even if it is true, as far as the African people are
concerned it is irrelevant. Our complaint is not that we are poor by
comparison with people in other countries, but that we are poor by comparison
with the white people in our own country, and that we are prevented by
legislation from altering this imbalance.

The lack of human dignity experienced by Africans is the direct result of
the policy of white supremacy. White supremacy implies black inferiority....
Whites tend to regard Africans as a separate breed. They do not look upon them
as people with families of their own; they do not realise that they have
emotions--that they fall in love like white people do; that they want to be
with their wives and children like white people want to be with theirs; that
they want to earn enough money to support their families properly, to feed and
clothe them and send them to school. And what `house-boy` or `garden-boy` or
labourer can ever hope to do this ?

Pass Laws, which to the Africans are amongst the most hated bits of
legislation in South Africa, render any African liable to police surveillance
at any time. I doubt whether there is a single African male in South Africa
who has not at some stage had a brush with the police over his pass. Hundreds
of thousands of Africans are thrown into gaol each year under Pass Laws. Even
worse than this is the fact that Pass Laws keep husband and wife apart and
lead to the breakdown of family life.

Poverty and the breakdown of family life have secondary effects. Children
wander about the streets of the townships because they have no schools to go
to, or no money to enable them to go to school, or no parents at home to see
that they go to school, because both parents (if there be two) have to work to
keep the family alive. This leads to a breakdown in moral standards, to an
alarming rise in illegitimacy and to growing violence which erupts, not only
politically, but everywhere. Life in the townships is dangerous. There is not
a day that goes by without somebody being stabbed or assaulted. And violence
is carried out of the townships into the white living areas. People are afraid
to walk alone in the streets after dark. Housebreakings and robberies are
increasing, despite the fact that the death sentence can now be imposed for
such offences. Death sentences cannot cure the festering sore.

Africans want to be paid a living wage. They want to perform work which
they are capable of doing, and not work which the Government declares them to
be capable of. Africans want to be allowed to live where they obtain work, and
not be endorsed out of an area because they were not born there. Africans want
to be allowed to own land in places where they work, and not to be obliged to
live in rented houses which they can never call their own. We want to be part
of the general population, and not confined to living in our own ghettoes.
African men want to have their wives and children to live with them where they
work, and not be forced into an unnatural existence in men`s hostels. African
women want to be with their men folk and not be left permanently widowed in
the Reserves . . . we want to be allowed to travel in our own country and to
seek work where we want to and not where the Labour Bureau tells us to. We
want a just share in the whole of South Africa; we want security and a stake
in society. Above all, we want equal political rights, because without them
our disabilities will be permanent. I know this sounds revolutionary to the
whites in this country, because the majority of voters will be Africans. This
makes the white man fear democracy.

It is not true that the enfranchisement of all will result in racial
domination.... The ANC has spent half a century fighting against racialism.
When it triumphs it will not change that policy. This then is what the ANC is
fighting for.... It is a struggle of the African people, inspired by their own
suffering and their own experience. It is a struggle for the right to live.

During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African
people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against
black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society
in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It
is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an
ideal for which I am prepared to die".

Mandela was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Walter Sisulu

Born at Ngcobo in the Transkei in 1912 and largely self-educated, Sisulu was
a miner, kitchen "boy" and baker`s "boy", before he joined
the African National Congress in 1940 and played a dynamic part in the new
policies that led to the campaign to defy unjust laws in 1952. His wife,
Albertina, a nurse, became a widely loved and respected leader of women. For
many years Secretary-General of the ANC, Sisulu was banned, house arrested and
repeatedly harassed by the police. With his close friend Mandela he was one of
the accused in the Treason Trial and, in the Rivonia Trial, was the main defence
witness, coming under pro longed attack from the prosecutor. An observer
commented: "Once Sisulu had taken the measure of the prosecution, it was as
if he forgot he was in the witness box. It must have been eleven years since he
had last appeared on a public plat form and now again he dominated the
situation".

In the course of Sisulu`s evidence, he spoke with authority about ANC policy:

"Since its inception, the ANC adopted a democratic policy. That is, it
advocated that there was room in South Africa for all racial groups which
existed. It advocated that it should participate in the Government councils of
this country. This policy was clearly stated in a document drawn up during the
war years in 1943. The document was called `African Claims`. The drawing up of
this document was inspired by the Atlantic Charter which was proclaimed then,
which inspired many nations of the world that all peoples, irrespective of
their colour, will have a future and a stake in their respective countries . .
. (The committee that drafted the document) was the cream of the African
leadership, leading intellectuals, leading businessmen, conservatives and
communists, all united by their desire to achieve freedom for themselves and
for all the people who have made South Africa their home".

Advocate Bram Fischer, leading Sisulu`s evidence, asked: "Now, Mr.
Sisulu, as a background to what eventually made the ANC agree to permit sabotage
what happened to all those efforts which had been put forward in 1945?"

Sisulu replied:

"Well, I`d like to mention that both in policy, programme and
practice, the ANC adopted the most reasonable and sober attitude for the unity
and harmony of its citizens . . . but the Europeans of this country, through
their political representatives, were not prepared to accept the line we have
chosen to a peaceful settlement of all problems by negotiations. Instead they
chose to make South Africa an armed camp . . . With the banning of meetings,
banning of organizations and suppressing of all legal methods, it was not
possible for Africans to accept this situation. No self-respecting African
would accept this situation....

"The Africans in South Africa are among the best informed about
events, particularly in their own country. (By 1960) they were aware that in
Africa, one country after another was getting freedom and that the ANC,
although it was one of the oldest organisations, was not coming anywhere near
their cherished ideals. It did not surprise some of us that the people should
become impatient.... I was myself convinced that civil war would eventually
become inevitable unless the Government changed its policy.... I felt that in
the interest of my own people it would be better that we should bring about a
state of affairs whereby such violence would be controlled".

That was the background to the founding of the sabotage organisation,
Umkhonto we Sizwe. Since it was felt that the ANC could not afford both Mandela
and Sisulu in this organisation, Sisulu himself had remained in the political
field. When, in April 1963, he was placed under 24-hour house arrest, it was
decided that he should go underground, and continue to organise.

In the course of cross-examination by the prosecutor, Dr. Percy Yutar, Sisulu
had an opportunity to expound on ANC attitudes to other races:

YUTAR: . . . that is your solution of the problems of this country--the
concept of black and white co-operation?

SISULU: Oh yes. We have absolutely no doubt that as a feasible proposition
it is the only answer--no other. The question of what Africa says or anybody
else is not the real issue. The question is, what do we feel in this country?

YUTAR: And yet the rest of Africa--I am putting it a bit too high, but many
States of Africa are the countries to whom you have appealed for assistance,
military and financial?

SISULU: Yes, that is correct.

YUTAR: And they are the countries that are supporting you militarily and
financially ?

SISULU: In spite of our policies . . .

YUTAR: And they are the countries who are against this concept of partner
ship between black and white ?

SISULU: Yes.

YUTAR: And notwithstanding that, you still say that can be the position in
this country?

SISULU: Of course. I am saying that the position is decided by the people
of South Africa, not the people outside.... It merely emphasises the
difficulties, and the problems of our organisation, of our policy, and yet we
are prepared to stand by it. We educate other people in this country and
abroad, that the only solution in South Africa is living together of black and
white, and no other....

YUTAR: Sisulu . . . perhaps it is pertinent at this stage just to ask you
this: if eventually the non-Europeans got control of the country, what would
be the position if the responsible leadership made a few more mistakes and
dropped a few more bombs in houses of the whites ?

SISULU: Well, on the question of responsibility insofar as this line is
concerned, it is not a question of colour. Europeans have done worse things in
this country, they have bombed each other.

YUTAR: I am talking about the responsible leadership that you have referred
to that made mistakes--what if they cut away some more railway lines ?

SISULU: I said that the question of being irresponsible is not a question
of colour. The leadership of the ANC has demonstrated for the last fifty years
that they are most responsible.

YUTAR: Most responsible?

SISULU: Oh yes.

YUTAR: And notwithstanding it, you gave your benign blessing to the
creation of Umkhonto and allowed them carte blanche to commit acts of sabotage
?

SISULU: Very much against our feeling. We have tried, by all means, not to
get into this situation . . .

THE COURT: And you also have a duty to persuade the people that they are
oppressed, is that so?

SISULU: If it`s so, I don`t know if it`s merely a question of persuading
the people. It would be a strange thing that the Africans in South Africa are
the only people who do not know that they are oppressed....

In re-examination, Advocate Fischer took Sisulu through the record of
harassment he had undergone: convicted in 1952 in the Defiance Campaign;
convicted a second time for continuing to organise and thus risking ten years in
jail; banned from gatherings and again arrested in 1954 for attending a
gathering; from 1956 to 1961 one of the accused in the Treason Trial; in 1960
detained during the post-Sharpeville emergency; 1961, twice convicted; 1962,
arrested six times, once on the occasion of his mother`s death when people had
come to sympathise yet police arrested him for breaking his ban; placed under
house arrest; and in 1963 captured at Rivonia and held under the 90-day
detention law, during which time he was interrogated by members of the Special
Branch several times and offered his freedom if he would give information
confidentially about his comrades.

Towards the end of Dr. Yutar`s cross-examination, Sisulu`s anger surfaced.
The prosecutor made the remark: "The police don`t arrest
indiscriminately".

SISULU: They arrest many people indiscriminately. For no offence people
have been arrested.

YUTAR: Would you like to make a political speech?

SISULU: I`m not making a political speech, I`m replying to your question.

YUTAR: How do you know they arrest people innocently?

SISULU: I know.

YUTAR: How do you know?

SISULU: They arrested my wife, they arrested my son.... They arrest other
people.

YUTAR: Yes, without any evidence whatsoever?

SISULU: What evidence?

YUTAR: I don`t know, I`m asking . . .

SISULU: I have been persecuted by the police, Special Branch. If there is a
man who has been persecuted it`s myself. In 1962 I was arrested six times. I
know the position in this country.

YUTAR: You do?

SISULU: I wish you were in the position of an African. I wish you were an
African to know the position in this country!

Sisulu was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Elias Motsoaledi

Born in 1926 in Sekhukhuniland, Motsoaledi was one of a family of ten living
on four acres of land.

In the Rivonia Trial he told the court:

"I came to Johannesburg to earn a living to help my family. I earned
24 shillings a week in a boot factory. When workers asked for better wages I
was sacked".

In time, he became chairman of the Furniture, Mattress and Bedding Workers
Union and Chairman of the Transvaal Non-European Trade Union--only to be banned
and, on occasion, arrested or detained.

In his statement from the dock he said:

"I know this is not the place to describe in detail all the heavy
burdens which an African has to carry, but I am telling the Court of some of
these matters which make our hearts sore and our minds heavy. When I was asked
to join Umkhonto We Sizwe it was at a time when it was clear to me that all
our years of peaceful struggle had been of no use. The Government would not
let us fight peacefully any more and had blocked all our legal acts by making
them illegal. I thought a great deal about the matter. I could see no other
way open to me. What I did brought me no personal gain; what I did I did for
my people and because I thought it was the only way left for me to help my
people. That is all I have to say".

Motsoaledi was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Andrew Mlangeni

Born in 1926 in a Johannesburg location, Andrew Mlangeni was one of 12
children. He paid for his schooling with money earned as a golf caddy and worked
as clerk and bus driver. Detained in July 1963, he was later put on trial with
the other Rivonia men.

In the course of the Rivonia Trial both he and Motsoaledi declared that while
held under the 90-day Detention Act they had been tortured. Mlangeni said to the
judge: "These my Lord are primitive methods, employed by the police in
trying to get statements out of the people. I believe one day that the police
will be sufficiently educated and will employ much better methods in trying to
get people to make statements".

During the trial he stated: "Though leaders of many countries throughout
the world have tried to persuade the Government to abandon its apartheid policy,
and although resolutions have been passed in the United Nations against South
Africa, this has met with no result. All that the Government has done is to
reply to the people`s demands by putting their political leaders in gaol, and
breaking up families".

Mlangeni was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Wilton Mkwayi

Following on the Rivonia Trial came the arrest and trial of Wilton Mkwayi
with I. D. Kitson, M. Chiba, M. Maharaj and J. Matthews.

Mkwayi, a leading member of the South African Congress of Trade Unions, told
his own story in his statement in mitigation:

"I want to tell the Court why it was I turned to sabotage.

My father made me a member of the African National Congress in 1940 when I
was 17 years old. He sent the card to me whilst I was at school. My father him
self was a member of the ANC and he thought it only right that his son should
also become a member of it. I know the reason why he became a member. The land
on which we were living was taken away by the Government and we had to go and
make a new home somewhere else.

I did not go very far at school because my father did not have the money. I
worked as a labourer for low wages--and I became interested in trade union
activities. Whenever I could I have always worked to earn my living. At the
end of 1943 I went to Cape Town to look for work. I was employed in a dynamite
factory where I worked as an office boy until 1945. I left work to go home
because of my mother`s death in 1945. I was getting £6 a month. Then I worked
in Port Elizabeth for the Railways and Harbours, from 1947 to January 1950, as
a sorter. Then on the 9 January 1950 I started work at Metal Box Company, Port
Elizabeth branch. I worked for this company until 1952 when there was a strike
and I lost my job. I then worked at Tin Plate Stores.

However, because of my trade union activities and my interest in the ANC I
became what whites like to call an agitator. It has been said that we Africans
are wrong to turn to violence, that we should adopt non-violent methods in
order to remedy our grievances. I would like to tell the Court how for years I
tried to achieve our aims by non-violent methods, and what I did before being
forced to turn to violence.

I became active in Port Elizabeth in 1947 during the Rent Campaign and bus
boycotts. I campaigned in the 1950 June strike called as a day of protest and
mourning for the death of our people in the May day strike in the Transvaal. I
took part in organising the Defiance Campaign in 1952 when more than 8,500
volunteers were jailed for breaking some selected unjust laws. It was also in
1952 when I was fined £10 for taking part in a strike at Metal Box Company,
Port Elizabeth branch against low wages.... In 1953 I became the organising
secretary of the Tin Workers Union, Port Elizabeth branch. The same year I
became the organising secretary of the African Textile Workers Industrial
Union (S.A.), Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage branch. I held this post until
1960.

I also became Volunteer-in-Chief of the ANC for the Eastern Cape in 1953.
The Volunteer-in-Chief for the whole country of the ANC was Nelson Mandela.

In 1954 I campaigned against Bantu Education which meant a step backwards
for African education. Also I campaigned against Bantu Authority--which
divides people according to their tribe--which means Africans are forced to
accept the apartheid system. We Africans will never rest until the apartheid
system is defeated.

It was in 1955 when a Congress of the People was called at Kliptown in
Johannesburg--even Government officials were invited, but did not come.... A
Freedom Charter was adopted by the people who attended the conference, black
and white. The Freedom Charter is what I believe in--I am fighting for the
principles contained in it. It is clear that as soon as the government belongs
to the people there will be no pass laws, all people will be equal before the
law, there will be no permit systems, no job reservations, and equal
opportunity for all.

The preaching of non-violence and the patience which my leaders had did not
help us very much. In 1956 I was arrested together with my leaders and charged
with treason. The treason in the eyes of the Government was that we wanted a
say in our own country. We had not declared that the white man should be
thrown into the sea which would have been an easy but irresponsible slogan. We
had declared that South Africa belongs to all those who lived in it, White,
Black Coloureds and Indians.

We felt that pass laws, Bantu education, influx control and low wages could
not be abolished if we did not do away with white supremacy. We believed that
we could put an end to white supremacy by peaceful means but by 1961 it was
clear that non-violent ways were closed to my people. Trade unions could no
longer function, leaders of the people were banished and restricted and,
finally, in April 1960 our organisation was banned. What would the people have
thought of me if I no longer took part in the activities of the ANC? I could
not fold my arms and say that there is nothing that I can do about it. I could
not abandon the organisation for which I had worked for so long. For the same
reasons I joined Umkhonto We Sizwe soon after it was formed.

Our organisations had not even considered sabotage and violence before they
were banned. It is this Government of South Africa which banned the ANC and
the PAC in 1960. They also banned the Congress of Democrats and they have
continued for years to ban, arrest, and harass the leading members of our
Trade Union movement and the Indian Congress.

Supporters of the Government never fail to remind us that we should
struggle for our aims by non-violent methods, but they close their eyes to the
fact that our organisations have been banned. It is easy for people sitting in
the comfort of their homes to condemn sabotage. It is easy for people to
lecture to us that sabotage is senseless and useless, but such people ignore
the long history of our non-violent and constitutional struggle.

For example: in 1946 we acted constitutionally and non-violently when the
miners on the Rand came out on strike for better wages. It was the Government
that acted violently. On that occasion workers were shot by the Government
forces and eight were killed and our leaders arrested.

In 1950 we had a strike on May 1 against the rule of the Nationalist
Government and against the restrictions placed on our leaders. The strike was
peaceful and non-violent. The Government again used its armed strength and
shot down our people and eighteen were killed.

This was on the Rand. In 1955 over 3,000 delegates from all over South
Africa came to the Congress of the People in Kliptown, Johannesburg where the
Freedom Charter was adopted. We even invited the Nationalist Party to listen
to grievances and our demands. Instead the Government sent more than 1,000
fully armed police to smash this Congress. We adopted the Freedom Charter
which set out our demands for a free South Africa for all its people, black
and white. The Government`s answer was to arrest over 150 of our leaders from
all over South Africa and charge them for High Treason. I was one of the
persons charged.

During that time also our people were removed at the point of sten guns and
bayonets from Sophiatown to Meadowlands. Over 2,000 armed police were used in
this forced removal. In March 1960 a peaceful gathering of our people at
Sharpeville was brutally attacked. They even used Saracens. Over 65 men, women
and children were murdered by the Government forces. In protest against these
killings at Sharpeville and Langa, we called a day of mourning strike for 28
March 1960. The Government`s reply to this was to proclaim a state of
emergency and to ban the ANC and PAC.

In May 1961, even though our organisations were banned, we called a strike
against the proclaiming of South Africa as a Republic without the consent of
our people. The Government`s reply was once more to display its armed strength
and intimidate our people. The Government closed the doors to peaceful change
and forced my people and those who were prepared to help us to go in for
sabotage in a controlled manner.

The reason why we went in for sabotage is a simple one. We did it in order
to highlight our grievances and to persuade the Government and the white
minority of this country to come together with us to a National Convention
which can work out a constitution for a free South Africa where black and
white can live in peace, harmony and equality. Sabotage is not the beginning
of a war but a letter of invitation to the Government and the white minority
of South Africa to come to this Convention. So far we have been met with what
some whites with pride call `a granite wall` ".

Referring to the allegation of a State Witness that he was a communist,
Mkwayi said.

"To me this matter is not of any great importance, but since it
appears to be of importance to the court, I will deal with it.... I am not a
communist, but I want to say here that I have always been prepared to work
with anybody, communists or non-communists as long as they are prepared to
work for a free South Africa. When I was detained the Security Police also
suggested that I had been used by the communists against the interest of the
African people. I have met communists both black and white. We are oppressed
not by communists but by a white minority Government. As a man from the rural
areas I cannot buy cattle without a permit. These permits were not introduced
by the communists, neither are such oppressive laws as the Group Areas Act,
Job Reservation and the Pass Laws. All these have been the work of the white
minority of this country. As for the communists, in my experience they have
worked and fought side by side with the oppressed people of South Africa for a
free South Africa. We, the African people, are prepared to work with any
person provided he is prepared to say with us that South Africa belongs to all
those who live in it".

Reverting to his own activities, he went on:

"When the State of Emergency was declared at the end of March 1960 I
went underground. I then left the country and went overseas on trade union
missions. I visited many European countries and a few African states
explaining the difficulties of African workers and laws against their trade
unions. I also asked for financial assistance for our trade unions. But I saw
that all these things and explaining about our situation in South Africa did
not help us much. The best way was to come back to my beloved country to fight
side by side with my people and my leaders.

Before coming back to my country I felt that I should have military
training. I had it in China in small arms. I felt that I must have this
military training so that I too could fight for my country if necessary. After
all in South Africa white women, and boys and girls of 16 are taught to handle
small arms.

I felt it an imperative duty to come back to South Africa and to actively
participate in the work that my leaders had started. I came back convinced
that the aims and objects expressed by our leader, Nelson Mandela, were the
only just basis for a solution to the problems of our country.

On my return I went to live with my leaders at Rivonia. I was at Rivonia on
the day the Rivonia arrests took place but I managed to evade arrest. I
escaped but I did not leave the country of my birth. I had returned to do what
I could and I was not prepared to leave even though I knew that I was a wanted
man. I also felt that, if I did not carry on the work started by my leaders, I
would be betraying my comrades who had been arrested at Rivonia and who had
taken the great risks in the cause of my people. Since my escape from Rivonia
I continued to work in the shadow of my leader, Nelson Mandela. I was a
fugitive in the land of my birth. I knew I was a wanted man since 1960. This
was not my choosing. I had to lead the life of an outlaw because the
Government refused to recognise that my people have a right to be treated as
equals and human beings....

The charges that have been brought against me and my fellow accused arise
from our desire to fight for the liberation of the people of South Africa from
the tyranny of racial discrimination. My leaders have time and again explained
and exposed the injustice done to my people. I am a Mandela man. I share his
hatred of the laws which are destroying the life and soul of my people. I
share his hatred for the system of racial discrimination. Our goal is and has
always been that all people in South Africa should live in harmony and
equality and this can only be achieved by the extension of the vote to all the
people of South Africa regardless of their colour or sex....To promise us
poverty in Bantustans will not help any body. As individuals and as a people
we want a just share in the whole of South Africa.

This is what my people and my own family are fighting for. The police tell
me that two of my brothers are already serving long sentences at Robben
Island. I, myself, am standing here before Your Lordship but I could not have
done other wise. I cannot do better than repeat what my leader Nelson Mandela
said at his trial.

`During my lifetime I have dedicated my life to this struggle of the
African people. I have fought against white domination and I have fought
against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free
society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal
opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to see realised.
But my Lord, if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die`
".

Mkwayi was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Bram Fischer

Born in April 1908, Bram (Abram) Fischer was the son of a Judge President of
the Orange Free State, grandson of a Prime Minister of the Orange River Colony.
A Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, on qualifying as a barrister he practised in
Johannesburg where he was elected to the Bar Council and for some years was its
chairman. A Queen`s Counsel, he led the defence in a number of political trials,
including the Treason Trial of 1956--1960 and the Rivonia Trial in 1963--4. In
September 1964 he was arrested and charged under the Suppression of Communism
Act. Briefly granted bail to argue a case before the Privy Council in London, he
returned to South Africa to stand trial. On 25 January 1965 he went underground
to continue the struggle. After nearly a year of evading the wide spread police
net, in November he was captured and brought to trial under the Sabotage Act and
the Suppression of Communism Act.

In Pretoria, on 28 March 1966, he told the court:

"I am on trial for my political beliefs and for the conduct to which
those beliefs drove me. Whatever labels may be attached to the fifteen charges
brought against me, they all arise from my having been a member of the
Communist Party and from my activities as a member. I engaged upon those
activities because I believed that, in the dangerous circumstances which have
been created in South Africa, it was my duty to do so.

When a man is on trial for his political beliefs and actions, two courses
are open to him. He can either confess to his transgressions and plead for
mercy or he can justify his beliefs and explain why he acted as he did. Were I
to ask forgiveness today I would betray my cause. That course is not open to
me. I believe that what I did was right....

My belief, moreover, is one reason why I have pleaded not guilty to all the
charges brought against me. Though I shall deny a number of important
allegations made, this Court is aware of the fact that there is much in the
State case which has not been contested. Yet, if I am to explain my motives
and my actions as clearly as I am able, then this Court was entitled to have
had before it the witnesses who testified in chief and under cross-examination
against me. Some of these, I believe, were fine and loyal persons who have now
turned traitors to their cause and to their country because of the methods
used against them by the State--vicious and inhuman methods. Their evidence
may, therefore, in important respects be unreliable.

There is another and more compelling reason for my plea and why I persist
in it. I accept the general rule that for the protection of a society laws
should be obeyed. But when laws themselves become immoral and require the
citizen to take part in an organised system of oppression--if only by his
silence or apathy --then I believe that a higher duty arises. This compels one
to refuse to recognize such laws. The laws under which I am being prosecuted
were enacted by a wholly unrepresentative body, a body in which three-quarters
of the people of this country have no voice whatever. These laws were enacted,
not to prevent the spread of communism, but for the purpose of silencing the
opposition of the large majority of our citizens to a Government intent upon
depriving them, solely on account of their colour, of the most elementary
human rights: of the right to freedom and happiness, the right to live
together with their families wherever they might choose, to earn their
livelihoods to the best of their abilities, to rear and educate their children
in a civilized fashion, to take part in the administration of their country
and obtain a fair share of the wealth they produce; in short, to live as human
beings....

I hold and have for many years held the view that politics can only be
properly understood and that our immediate political problems can only be
satisfactorily solved without violence and civil war by the application of
that scientific system of political knowledge known as Marxism....

When I consider what it was that moved me to join the Communist Party, I
have to cast my mind back for more than a quarter of a century to try and
ascertain what precisely my motives at that time were.... In my mind there
remain two clear reasons.... The one is the glaring injustice which exists and
has existed for a long time in South African society, the other, a gradual
realization as I became more and more deeply involved with the Congress
Movement of those years, that is, the movement for freedom and equal human
rights for all, that it was always members of the Communist Party who seemed
prepared, regardless of cost, to sacrifice most; to give of the best, to face
the greatest dangers, in the struggle against poverty and discrimination.

The glaring injustice is there for all who are not blinded by prejudice to
see.

This is not even a question of the degree of humiliation or poverty or
misery imposed by discrimination on one section of the community. Hence, it
cannot be justified by comparing non-white standards of living or education in
South Africa with those in other parts of the continent. It is simply and
plainly that discrimination should be imposed as a matter of deliberate policy
solely because of the colour which a man`s skin happens to be, irrespective of
his merits as a man, a worker, a thinker, a father or a friend.

Yet the injustice of the system does not in itself explain my conduct. All
white South Africans can see it. The vast majority of them remain unmoved and
unaffected. They are either oblivious to it or, despite all its cruelty,
condone it on the assumption, whether admitted or not, that the non-white of
this country is an inferior being with ideals, hopes, loves and passions which
are different from ours. Hence the further tacit or open assumption that he
need not be treated as a complete human being, that is, that it is not
`unfair` to make him carry a pass, to prevent him from owning land,
deprivations which if applied to whites, would horrify all and cause a
revolution overnight.

Though nearly forty years have passed, I can remember vividly the
experience which brought home to me exactly what this `white` attitude is and
also how artificial and unreal it is. Like many young Afrikaners I grew up on
a farm. Between the ages of eight and twelve my daily companions were two
young Africans of my own age. I can still remember their names. For four years
we were, when I was not at school, always in each other`s company. We roamed
the farm together, we hunted and played together, we modelled clay oxen and
swam. And never can I remember that the colour of our skins affected our fun,
or our quarrels or our close friendship in any way.

Then my family moved to town and I moved back to the normal white South
African mode of life where the only relationship with Africans was that of
master to servant. I finished my schooling and went to University. There one
of my first interests became a study of the theory of segregation, then
beginning to blossom. This seemed to me to provide the solution to South
Africa`s problems and I became an earnest believer in it. A year later to help
in a small way to put this theory into practice, because I do not believe that
theory and practice can or should be separated, I joined the Bloemfontein
Joint Council of Europeans and Africans, a body devoted largely to trying to
induce various authorities to provide proper (and separate) amenities for
Africans. I arrived for my first meeting with other newcomers. I found myself
being introduced to leading members of the African community. I found I had to
shake hands with them. This, I found required an enormous effort of will on my
part. Could I really, as a white adult touch the hand of a black man in
friendship ?

That night I spent many hours in thought trying to account for my strange
revulsion when I remembered I had never had any such feelings towards my boy
hood friends. What became abundantly clear was that it was I and not the black
man who had changed; that despite my growing interest in him, I had developed
an antagonism for which I could find no rational basis whatsoever....

The result of all this was that in that and in succeeding years when some
of us ran literacy classes in the old Waaihoek location at Bloemfontein, I
came to understand that colour prejudice was a wholly irrational phenomenon
and that true human friendship could extend across the colour bar once the
initial prejudice was overcome. And that I think was lesson No. 1 on my way to
the Communist Party which has always refused to accept any colour bar and has
always stood firm on the belief, itself 2,000 years old, of the eventual
brother hood of all men.

The other reason for my attraction to the Communist Party, the willingness
to sacrifice, was a matter of personal observation.... The Communist Party had
already for two decades stood avowedly and unconditionally for political
rights for non-whites and its white members were, save for a handful of
courageous individuals, the only whites who showed complete disregard for the
hatred which this attitude attracted from their fellow white South Africans.
These members, I found, were whites who could have taken full advantage of all
the privileges open to them and their families because of their colour, who
could have obtained lucrative employment and social position, but who instead
were prepared for the sake of their consciences, to perform the most menial
and unpopular work at little or sometimes no remuneration.... But apart from
the example of the white members, it was always the communists of all races
who were at all times pre pared to give of their time and their energy and
such means as they had, to help those in need and those most deeply affected
by discrimination; . . . who helped with night schools and feeding schemes,
who assisted trade unions fighting desperately to preserve standards of living
and who threw themselves into the work of the national movements. It was
African communists who constantly risked arrest or the loss of their jobs or
even their homes in locations, in order to gain or retain some rights....

Why I continued

But I have to tell this Court not only why I joined the Communist Party
when it was a legal party--when at times it had representatives in Parliament,
the Cape Provincial Council and the City Council of Johannesburg. I must also
explain why I continued to be a member after it was declared illegal. This
involves what I believe, on the one hand, to be the gravely dangerous
situation which has been created in South Africa from about 1950 onwards and,
on the other, the vital contribution which socialist thought can make towards
its solution. I shall start with the latter....

I want to refer to a few well-recognized principles which demonstrate the
nature of the extremely dangerous situation into which South Africa is being
led, by those who choose to ignore these principles, and which also
demonstrate the desperate urgency for reversing this direction. I should add
that most of the Marxist principles to which I shall refer are today accepted
by many historians and economists who are by no means themselves Marxists.

It is clear for instance that during the course of its development, human
society assumes various forms. There is a primitive kind of communism found in
early stages, best illustrated today by the Bushman society still in existence
in parts of South Africa. There have been slave-owning societies and feudal
societies. There is capitalism and socialism, and each of these types of
society develops its own characteristic form of government, of political
control....

(The Marxist) approach explains in rational terms why at different times in
man`s history, different economic and political forms of society have existed.
It also explains why one type of society must of necessity give way to a new
and higher form. History therefore becomes something which can be rationally
understood and explained. It ceases to be a meaningless agglomeration of
events or a mere account of great men wandering in haphazard fashion across
its stage. Similarly, modern society itself assumes a meaning as well. It has
not appeared on the scene by mere chance; it is not final or immutable and in
its South African form it contains its own contradictions which must
irresistibly lead to its change.

This is part of Marxist theory and the first point therefore which I seek
to make is that Marxism is not something evil or violent or subversive. It is
true that propaganda against it (the Communist Party in South Africa) has in
recent times been unbridled.... It is also true that for sixteen years now its
principles have been outlawed, and that prejudiced propaganda has made it
almost impossible for our people to give unbiased thought to those principles
which most closely affect their future. They do not even study what the people
they choose to look upon as enemies, are thinking. In fact they have no idea
what socialism means and the tragic stage has been reached where the word
`communism` evokes nothing but unthinking and irrational hatred. But this does
not alter the character nor the accuracy of the Marxist view of South African
society nor does it alter the fact that socialism has already been adopted by
fourteen States with a population of over 1,000 million people and is accepted
as the future form of society by many other millions in all parts of the
world. What it does do is to throw into high relief the absurdity of
legislation which seeks to abolish a scientific approach to history, which as
I shall show, has so much to contribute to the solution of our problems. One
should not forget either that this reaction cannot abolish those four years
when the Soviet State, then the only socialist State, stood as one of the main
bastions between civilization and the Nazi armies....

I have not said anything about capitalism as yet. Its characteristic
features are displayed in South Africa. Hence I ask the Court to look at it in
its South African context. Before I do so, I want to emphasize two relevant
matters:

  1. The political changes I have referred to occur when the outmoded
    political form ceases to serve the needs of the people who live under the
    new circumstances brought about by the development of new economic
    methods. Where the old forms are at their weakest, the change is most
    likely to occur first and when it comes it is irresistible. The clock of
    history can never be set back. Once the economic changes have occurred,
    the political changes are bound to follow.
  2. In fact, therefore, the sole question is whether, when they occur, the
    political changes will be effected by peaceful means or by violence, and
    this depends in essence upon the balance of forces at the time when the
    changes come and on the degree to which people understand the need for
    political change.

South Africa today is a clear example of a society in which the political
forms do not serve the needs of most of the people. The chief features of
capitalism as we know it here are clear:

  1. The means of production are owned by a relatively small handful of
    people. This ownership is becoming more and more concentrated. I am
    referring of course, to the ownership of factories, mines and land used
    for productive purposes.
  2. The overwhelming majority of men and women in the country own no means
    of production and can exist only by selling their labour power.
  3. Production of commodities is undertaken solely for the purpose of making
    a profit and for no other. This is not due to any particular trait of
    avarice in mankind. It is inherent in the system, for profit is its life
    blood. If profit disappears, as it does periodically, the system falters
    or even comes to a stand still as it did in the 1930s.
  4. Moreover, the existence of the system depends on competition for markets
    and raw materials and cheap labour. Since large-scale production and
    up-to-date methods of production which are constantly being improved,
    reduce costs, the inner motive force of the system is constantly driving
    it to form larger and larger production units and to an ever more intense
    search for markets.

It is precisely these characteristics of capitalism which lead to
imperialism and which led to the scramble for Africa during the last century
and to the division of the world into the colonies of the Imperial States.

All recognize these facts. What everyone tries to forget or simply
overlooks is that for the vast majority of men the system is based upon fear,
fear of unemployment and poverty. This is so in the older industrial
countries. It is more particularly so in the colonies and ex-colonies, and in
South Africa it is a fear which is accentuated by the colour bar. At heart the
problem is an economic one which becomes only too apparent in South Africa
when one takes note of the reactions which, even in a period of apparent
prosperity, follow any attempt to permit non-whites to perform skilled work.
In the back of every white man`s mind lurks the fear of losing his job. This
fear is always with the white man in this country, be he miner or bricklayer,
steelworker or bus driver.

For the non-white the position is intolerable. He knows he will always be
the first to suffer loss of employment. He realizes that so little concern is
shown for him that in South Africa the number of unemployed Africans is never
even counted or known.

Now it is the fear, bred by this system, which is the fertile soil for
producing racialism and intolerance. It was a similar fear which in Europe
enabled Hitler to propagate his monstrous theory of race superiority which led
to the extermination of five million Jews in Germany. It is this fear which
provides scope for the ready acceptance by whites in South Africa of many
distorted ideas: that Africans are not civilized; that they cannot become so
for many generations; that they are not our fellow-citizens but really our
enemies, and hence must be ruled by extreme police state methods and must be
prevented from having any organizations of their own; that their voice should
be heard only through mouthpieces selected by our all-white Government; that
their leaders should be kept permanently on Robben Island....

I am charged with performing acts calculated to further the objects of
communism, to wit, the establishment in South Africa of a despotic system of
government based on the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is a gross
misstatement of my aims and those of my Party. We have never aimed at a
despotic system of government. Nor were any efforts ever directed to
establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat in this country. It is
necessary therefore for me to explain what we have worked for....

We have never put forward socialism as our immediate solution. What we have
said is that immediate dangers can be avoided by what we always refer to as a
national democratic revolution, that is by bringing our State at this stage
into line with the needs of today, by abolishing discrimination, extending
political rights and then allowing our peoples to settle their own future.
This is fully demonstrated by our Programme which right at the outset says:

`As its immediate and foremost task, the South African Communist Party
works for a united front of national liberation. It strives to unite all
sections and classes of oppressed and democratic people for a national
democratic revolution to destroy white domination. The main content of this
revolution will be the national liberation of the African people; carried to
its fulfilment, this revolution will at the same time put an end to every sort
of race discrimination and privilege. The revolution will restore the land and
wealth of the country to the people and guarantee democracy, freedom and
equality of rights and opportunities to all`.

It makes clear that its `immediate proposals` are put forward within the
frame work of the Freedom Charter for urgent discussion by a National
Convention, not in order to establish a socialist state but for the building
of a national democratic state.

Over the past twenty or thirty years the weakest link in the imperialist
system has been its inability to deal with the wants of the colonial peoples.
There it has bred its own downfall because, on the one hand, it created mass
poverty and economic instability and, on the other, developed intense feelings
of nationalism. What imperialism succeeded in doing in the colonies in the
twentieth century was to produce the worst evils which the industrial
revolution produced in England in the early nineteenth century plus a deep
sense of national consciousness. Hence in those parts of the world--India,
Africa and the East--the so-called revolution has taken place but in different
forms. Four empires have had to dissolve themselves and have been compelled to
grant political independence to some thirty or forty States just as Britain
was compelled to grant the vote to the so called `lower` classes last century.
But with three or four notable exceptions, these States have achieved their
independence peacefully and without having to resort to any form of violence.
South African State propaganda suggests that this was due to some mystical
decadence in the West. Nothing could be further from the truth. Britain,
France, Holland and Belgium have not in a couple of decades become soft or
decadent. Far deeper forces have come into play which left them with no
alternative but to do what they have done. The combination of the new
nationalism and the urge to take control of their own economic future proved
in the new States to be irresistible.

It should indeed not be difficult for South Africans to understand this
process. In one sense we Afrikaners were the vanguard of this liberation
movement in Africa. Of all former colonies, we displayed the greatest
resistance to imperial conquest, a resistance which a handful of freedom
fighters carried on for three years against the greatest Empire of all time.
We failed then. A few decades later, without having once more to resort to
arms, we succeeded in gaining our independence because it was impossible to
stop us.... Now, as we communists see it, those who rule South Africa are
trying to do just those things which imperialism could achieve in the
nineteenth century but which are impossible in the second half of the
twentieth. That attempt must lead inevitably to disaster.

Present dangers

So much for the considerations of theory which led me to contravene the
law. Let me turn to what I regard as the present dangers in South Africa,
which should impel people to act. I suppose it can never be easy for the
normal citizen of a State to break the law.... If in addition he has been
trained as a lawyer, as I have, his instincts are reinforced by his
training.... Only profound and compelling reasons can lead him to choose such
a course.

In my view such powerful and compelling reasons have been brought into
existence in South Africa during the past fifteen years or more and they have
. . . led many thousands of South African citizens, including many of the
country`s kindliest and wisest and in normal circumstances, most law-abiding
citizens, to transgress against unjust laws.

My own case is but a single one which illustrates to what our laws have
driven such widely different persons as: Chief Luthuli, Nelson Mandela, Robert
Sobukwe, Dr. G. M. Naicker, Nana Sita, Hugh Lewin, Jean Middleton, Alan Brooks
and thousands of others, young and old, men and women.

There has always, since the days of slavery, been racial discrimination in
South Africa. I suppose, at the beginning, when people enjoying a more
advanced civilization come into contact and intermingle with those not so
fortunate, this is inevitable, though according to the tenets of true
Christianity it should not be so. Today we know, from experience in other
parts of the world, that it is possible to make an illiterate people literate
and to `civilize` them in one or at most two generations provided those who
hold the State power are prepared to devote sufficient resources to that
object--even if that entails sacrifices in other directions. That course South
Africa never took.... Deliberately we chose the path of `segregation` which,
whatever changing appellations we may give to it, was and is a policy intended
to keep the non-whites in a state of permanent inferiority and subjection--an
inferiority which is political, social and economic. This in itself
constitutes a grave menace.

In the first place `apartheid` or `parallelle ontwikkeling` can never
succeed.... It is sufficient to ask whether my Afrikaner people would after a
century-long struggle for freedom and equal rights, ever have been satisfied
were it proposed:

  1. That they should be given, say, the Orange Free State without its gold
    or coal mines, as the one and only part of the country in which they could
    live as of right and in which they could own land.
  2. That Afrikaners should enjoy political rights in the Orange Free State
    only and those in the form of an emasculated Provincial Council always
    subject to the control of a legislature comprised entirely of members of a
    different race--with only a promise of some vague form of `independence`
    at some unspecified, dim and future time.
  3. That elsewhere in South Africa, where the majority of their people live,
    and would of necessity forever have to live, they should be allowed to
    live only on sufferance of another race--subject also to having
    employment, the necessary documents and having a political record of not
    being openly opposed to the government of the day.
  4. That in all the parts of the country--the Transvaal, Natal and the Cape
    --where lie the industries, the mines and the big cities of our country,
    they as Afrikaners should have to live in locations or in compounds, be
    excluded from owning their own homes, be excluded from performing skilled
    work and be constantly subject to losing their employment because of job
    reservation.
  5. That in those areas they should be excluded from all administrative and
    judicial posts and from all our best universities and schools, our
    theatres, restaurants, places of entertainment and other amenities.
  6. That they should be subject to the Pass Laws and that Afrikaans should
    be recognized as an official language in the Orange Free State only.
  7. Hence, that they should be condemned for the foreseeable future to
    degrading poverty and insult.

I have gone far enough, though this catalogue could be extended
indefinitely. After all, my object is merely to explain my motives. The answer
should be obvious. But what does not seem to be obvious to the white people of
this country is that the attempt to implement their present policy is one
which is fraught with peril. Here, too, argument is superfluous if for one
moment one uses one`s imagination and pictures its application to one of the
white races of this country. The situation created would immediately be
explosive and would lead overnight to extreme unrest and violence--as indeed
much milder policies have in the past led: in Graaff Reinet and Swellendam, in
the Free State, in 1881 in the Transvaal and even in the 1914 Rebellion when
those who though they were wronged were in fact in possession of the vote.

That similar reactions on the part of the non-white have not been produced
during the past fifty years is no tribute to the policy of segregation but
rather to the tolerance, understanding and infinite goodwill of the African.
The only surprising thing is that it has produced nothing more violent than
some highly con trolled and restricted sabotage.

But there are circumstances which make the policy of segregation far more
dangerous in the 1950s than it would have been in earlier decades....

I am not trying to dramatize this situation. I am stating nothing but plain
simple fact. It is there for anyone to see--for anyone whose vision is not
totally obscured by the myopia of the white South African:

  1. There is a strong and ever-growing movement for freedom and for basic
    human rights among the non-white people of the country--that is, amongst
    four-fifths of the population.
  2. This movement is supported not only by the whole of Africa but by
    virtually the whole membership of the United Nations as well--both West
    and East.
  3. However complacent and indifferent white South Africa may be, this
    movement can never be stopped. In the end it must triumph. Above all,
    those of us who are Afrikaners and who have experienced our own successful
    struggle for full equality should know this.
  4. The sole questions for the future of all of us therefore are not whether
    the change will come but only (i) whether the change can be brought about
    peacefully and without bloodshed; and (ii) what the position of the white
    man is going to be in the period immediately following on the
    establishment of democracy--after the years of cruel discrimination and
    oppression and humiliation which he has imposed on the non-white people of
    this country....

I believed when I joined the illegal Communist Party that South Africa had
set out on a course which could lead only to civil war of the most vicious
kind whether in ten or fifteen or twenty years. Algeria provided the perfect
historical example of that. I believed moreover, and still believe, that such
a civil war can never be won by the whites of this country. They might win
some initial rounds. In the long run the balance of forces is against them,
both inside and outside the country. In Algeria . . . a French army of half a
million soldiers backed by one of the world`s great industrial Powers could
not succeed. But win or lose, the consequences of civil war would be
horrifying and permanent. Clearly it is imperative that an alternative
`solution` be found, for in truth civil war is no `solution` at all.

Here I believed and still believe that socialism in the long term has an
answer to the problem of race relations--that is a Socialist State. But by
negotiation, other immediate solutions can be found. They must, however, not
be imposed but worked out in co-operation, and that is what the Communist
Party has stood for....

We must find a system which creates work and banishes the fear of
unemployment. That I believe can be found in a carefully conceived plan along
the lines of the Freedom Charter with a fair division of political and
economic power. All the peoples of South Africa must be given a voice in their
own affairs and in the whole of the country which they work in and they must
be taught that races can live and work together in harmony. Had our white
political leaders during the past thirty years preached the possibility of
interracial co-operation instead of using every means of destroying any belief
in it, we might already have reached a position of safety. South Africa would
certainly by now have achieved a unique leadership amongst the States of
Africa and would undoubtedly have influenced the history of the whole of this
continent and the future of the white man`s position in it. Instead we stand
completely isolated from over 200 million people, hated by all....

I speak as an Afrikaner

I have one more thing to say as to my motives. I estreated bail on 25
January of last year. Had I wanted to save myself, I could have done so by
leaving the country or simply by remaining in England in 1964.... I regarded
it as my duty to remain in this country and to continue with my work as long
as I was physically able to do so. The same reasons which induced me to join
the illegal Communist Party induced me to estreat bail. By 1965 they had been
magnified a hundred fold. All protest had been silenced. The very
administration of justice had been changed by the 90-day law and by the
`Sobukwe` clause which in a vital respect had usurped the functions even of
the court trying me. My punishment was no longer in the sole discretion of
that court. During the previous decade too--and now I speak as an
Afrikaner--something sinister for the future of my people had happened.

It is true that `apartheid has existed for many decades` with all that it
entails in shapes ranging from segregation and the deprivation of rights to
such apparently trivial things as the constant depiction in our Afrikaans
newspaper cartoons of the African as a cross between a baboon and a nineteenth
century American coon. What is not appreciated by my fellow Afrikaner, because
he has cut himself off from all contact with non-whites, is that the extreme
intensification of that policy over the past fifteen years is laid entirely at
his door. He is now blamed as an Afrikaner for all the evils and the
humiliation of apartheid.

Hence today the policeman is known as a `Dutch`. That is why too, when I
give an African a lift during a bus boycott, he refuses to believe that I am
an Afrikaner.

All this bodes ill for our future. It has bred a deep-rooted hatred for
Afrikaners, for our language, our political and racial outlook amongst all non
whites--yes, even amongst those who seek positions of authority by pretending
to support apartheid. It is rapidly destroying amongst non-whites all belief
in future co-operation with Afrikaners.

To remove this barrier will demand all the wisdom, leadership and influence
of those Congress leaders now sentenced and imprisoned for their political
beliefs. It demands also that Afrikaners themselves should protest openly and
clearly against discrimination. Surely, in such circumstances, there was an
additional duty cast on me, that at least one Afrikaner should make this
protest actively and positively even though as a result I now face fifteen
charges instead of four.

It was to keep faith with all those dispossessed by apartheid that I broke
my undertaking to the court, separated myself from my family, pretended I was
someone else, and accepted the life of a fugitive. I owed it to the political
prisoners, to the banished, to the silenced and those under house arrest, not
to remain a spectator, but to act. I knew what they expected of me and I did
it. I felt responsible, not to those who are indifferent to the sufferings of
others, but to those who are concerned. I knew that by valuing above all their
judgement, I would be condemned by people who are content to see themselves as
respectable and loyal citizens. I cannot regret any condemnation that may
follow me.

At the times referred to in the evidence I was a member of the Central
Committee of the Communist Party. I was its Acting Chairman.... I attended the
meetings of the Committee. I am not prepared to say who its members were
though I should add that these meetings were occasionally attended by non
members--persons we wished to consult and who could be trusted because of
their long record of service to the liberation movement in South Africa....

I cannot deal with these meetings or with testimony about my views and my
conduct or about Umkhonto We Sizwe without giving the court a brief outline of
the history of the formation of Umkhonto We Sizwe and its purposes and of the
attitudes of the Communist Party towards it.

It is well known that throughout its history the Indian Congress has always
been strongly influenced by the ideas of non-violence taught by Mahatma
Gandhi, who was its founder. It is also a matter of history that during the
first forty years of its existence, from 1912 onwards, the African National
Congress chose strictly legal methods only of trying to make its deep-felt
grievances known to the white people of this country. Exactly the same methods
were used by the Coloured People`s Organisation and by the Communist Party.

If proof were needed of the fruitless results of these methods it can be
found in any statute book printed during those years. Discrimination was piled
upon discrimination. Steadily over the years the rights of non-whites were
eroded. After forty years no leaders could be expected to continue with such
fruitless methods....".

Fischer next outlined the course of the liberation struggle between 1952 and
1961, and continued as follows:

"This was the position when the African leaders met in March 1961 in
Maritzburg in an all-in conference and decided to make one more peaceful call
on the Government to hold a convention, at least to discuss the constitution
for the new Republic of South Africa, failing which there should be a
three-day stay at-home at the end of May....

Again instead of sympathy new oppressive legislation was passed, all
gatherings were prohibited between 19 May and 26 June; nationwide police raids
were conducted; this time between 8,000 and 10,000 Africans were arrested;
leaders were held under the twelve-day no bail rule and the army staged
demonstrations in the non-white areas of our cities. That was the Government`s
reply to what was surely a reasonable request. Save for a handful, none of
those leaders arrested was ever charged. The few who were charged were
acquitted. In fact these arrests on this vast scale amounted to an abuse of
legal process.

In these circumstances history will not blame those Congress leaders who in
some way or other came together in July 1961 and devised the scheme by which
the Spear of the Nation was to be brought into existence under the control of
one of its ablest and most respected leaders, Nelson Mandela.

I must emphasize the basic ideas which then prevailed:

  1. To do nothing and simply accept apartheid would have meant total and
    unconditional surrender to ideas which were and still are intensely hated.
  2. To proceed to personal violence against whites or white leaders would
    have been to negate all the Congresses had ever stood for--the
    establishment of racial harmony and co-operation.
  3. Therefore there was devised a plan which it was hoped might help to
    achieve the required results without injury to person or to race
    relations, namely, the formation of a small, closely knit, multiracial
    organization which would practice sabotage against carefully selected
    targets which could be attacked without endangering life or limb but
    which, because of their nature, would demonstrate the hatred of apartheid.
    For this purpose therefore targets were to be Government installations and
    preferably those which, if successfully attacked, would disrupt the
    process of governing.

Two further ideas were of importance in this scheme. One was that the
leaders of Umkhonto gave the assurance that it would not depart from its
self-imposed limitations without prior reference to the political movement. In
the circumstances the African National Congress and the Communist Party took
no steps to prevent their members joining Umkhonto.

The second was that the organization was not only to be secret but was to
be self-controlled by men selected by Mandela, was to finance its own affairs
and was to be kept entirely separate and distinct from the Congresses and the
Communist Party. This was of equal importance. The Congress and the Communist
Party still had important political functions to fulfil as several exhibits
clearly indicate--the functions of political education and organization, of
making use of every political opportunity which presented itself to advance
the cause of freedom and democracy. Their members had been recruited on the
basis that they were joining non-violent organizations. It would have been
politically dishonest as well as politically foolish to endeavour to turn them
into organizations for sabotage. The Congress and the Communist Party did not
wish to have their membership held liable for every act of sabotage nor, and
this was of crucial political importance, did they want their members to gain
the idea that once sabotage commenced, political work should cease. This
separation of organizations was always maintained. I had no hand in the
founding of Umkhonto and I was never a member. I became aware of its existence
and did not disapprove.

It was never believed that a fundamental change in South African policy
could be brought about by sabotage alone. What was hoped by those who devised
the plan was that it would highlight the ever growing dissatisfaction and that
steady political work by the Congress and the Communist Party would have to
continue to try to bring about a change in the attitude of white South
Africa....

I should say at this stage that the Communist Party has always in this
country and elsewhere been rigidly opposed to individual acts of violence.
Such acts are regarded by communists as acts of terrorism which achieve
nothing. Communists are not, of course, opposed to violence on principle. They
are not pacifists. They do, however, believe that in general it is the working
class which suffers most from violence and war and hence that wherever
possible this is to be avoided....

The plan put forward by Umkhonto appeared to us to be of an entirely
different character from that type of terrorism of which we all disapproved in
principle and in practice. It was to be a demonstration. It might achieve its
object of making the white voter in South Africa reconsider his whole
attitude. If it succeeded in that it would succeed without loss of life or
injury to persons, the very things which stimulate race antagonism. It might
in addition have the effect of deterring extremists, whose numbers and
influence were growing at an alarming rate from undertaking precisely that
kind of terrorism which we have always fought to prevent....

Horrifying picture

I cannot address any argument to this court. What I can do is to give the
court certain facts regarding the manner in which the criminal law has come to
be administered in political cases in this country. It presents a picture
which is horrifying to those brought up with traditional ideas about justice.

In July of 1964 I was detained for three days under the ninety-day law and
was twice interrogated. There was nothing fair or impartial about the inter
rogation.... As for solitary confinement, I can only say that every South
African voter should try it on himself. He can do so by locking himself up for
a week-end in one small unfurnished room with no window through which he can
see, by allowing himself to be taken out twice a day only, by a stranger, to
walk around an enclosed yard for half an hour and for the rest to see no one
at all, except the stranger who brings him food three times a day. One
week-end would be sufficient to convince him of its callous inhumanity--of
why, in wiser days its application was strictly limited by the law.

For the past four and a half months I have also been held in conditions
which in some ways amounted to solitary confinement. I was interrogated once
only though an extremely unfair method was used to try and extract information
from me. And though I was the accused it was suggested that by giving this
information I could obtain the release of an elderly person in poor health who
was then being detained.

Compared with others, I have not suffered. During these four and a half
months I have twice a week been allowed to see my children. I have also been
allowed to consult with legal advisers and to obtain reading matter.
Nevertheless on the majority of days I have, sleeping and working, had to kill
twenty-three hours a day by myself and I can only state that, if under such
conditions pressure had really been applied to me--if I had been made to stand
in one spot for twenty or thirty or even sixty hours at a time with batteries
of trained men firing questions at me--the `statue` method as it is known--if
under those conditions I had given information it could only have been
information of a most unreliable character. Solitary confinement in itself is
a vicious and inhuman form of treatment....

I cannot testify to the extreme forms which this `treatment` has taken. But
there are facts of which the State knows, and some of which have come before
our courts which establish what their consequences have been apart from
twisting and distorting human personalities like those of Beyleveld and
Hlapane. These methods have already produced three suicides, one of them by an
Indian who was a close friend of mine, a man no one could ever have dreamed
would take his own life. They have also produced two serious attempts at
suicide by two other close friends. The first was by Mrs. Slovo, the mother of
three small daughters, a courageous woman if ever there was one. The other, by
Mr. Heymann, also a person of outstanding character and courage.

These facts which all should know . . . bring shame to our country. Few
whites recognize them. Most accept the application of the 180-day law as a
normal procedure. But the facts remain and they are the result of an attempt
to use the criminal law in order to suppress political beliefs. In such
circumstances the administration of criminal law . . . ceases to have
integrity. It becomes an inquisition instead. It leads to the total extinction
of freedom. It adds immeasurably to the deep race hatred.

The last subject I want to mention is personal. Therefore I hesitated
before deciding to do so. But I shall not be giving evidence or making a
statement in mitigation and perhaps I should acquaint the Court with one
aspect of my back ground.

I was a Nationalist at the age of six, if not before. I saw violence for
the first time when, sitting on my father`s shoulder, I saw business premises
with German names burned to the ground in Bloemfontein including those of some
of my own family. I can still remember the weapons collected by my father and
his friends who were bent on preventing a second outbreak. I saw my father
leave with an ambulance unit to try and join the rebel forces. I remained a
Nationalist for over twenty years thereafter and became, in 1929, the first
Nationalist Prime Minister of a student parliament.

I never doubted that the policy of segregation was the only solution to
this country`s problems until the Hitler theory of race superiority began to
threaten the world with genocide and with the greatest disaster in all
history. The Court will see that I did not shed my old beliefs with ease.

It was when these doubts arose that one night, when I was driving an old
ANC leader to his house far out to the west of Johannesburg that I propounded
to him the well-worn theory that if you separate races you diminish the points
at which friction between them may occur and hence ensure good relations. His
answer was the essence of simplicity. If you place the races of one country in
two camps, said he, and cut off contact between them, those in each camp begin
to forget that those in the other are ordinary human beings, that each lives
and laughs in the same way, that each experiences joy or sorrow, pride or
humiliation for the same reasons. Hereby each becomes suspicious of the other
and each eventually fears the other, which is the basis of all racialism.

I believe no one could more effectively sum up the South African position
today. Only contact between the races can eliminate suspicion and fear; only
contact and co-operation can breed tolerance and understanding. Segregation or
apartheid, however genuinely believed in, can produce only those things it is
supposed to avoid: interracial tension and estrangement, intolerance and race
hatreds.

All the conduct with which I have been charged has been directed towards
maintaining contact and understanding between the races of this country. If
one day it may help to establish a bridge across which white leaders and the
real leaders of the non-whites can meet to settle the destinies of all of us
by negotiation and not by force of arms, I shall be able to bear with
fortitude any sentence which this Court may impose on me. It will be a
fortitude strengthened by this knowledge at least, that for twenty-five years
I have taken no part, not even by passive acceptance, in that hideous system
of discrimination which we have erected in this country and which has become a
byword in the civilized world today.

In prophetic words, in February 1881, one of the great Afrikaner leaders
addressed the President and Volksraad of the Orange Free State. His words are
inscribed on the base of the statue of President Kruger in the square in front
of this Court. After great agony and suffering after two wars they were
eventually fulfilled without force or violence for my people. President
Kruger`s words were:

`Met vertrouwen leggen wy onze zaak open voor de geheele wereld. Het zy wy
overwinnen, het zy wy sterven: de vryheid zal in Afrika ryzen als de zon uit
de morgenwolken`.*

In the meaning which those words bear today they are as truly prophetic as
they were in 1881. My motive in all I have done has been to prevent a
repetition of that unnecessary and futile anguish which has already been
suffered in one struggle for freedom".

Fischer was sentenced to life imprisonment. Imprisoned in Pretoria, during
1974 his failing health proved to be the result of cancer. Despite world-wide
appeals, the Government refused to release him to the care of his family until
death was imminent. He died in May 1975. The authorities refused to release his
ashes to the family.

*With confidence we lay our case before the whole world. Whether we win or
die, freedom will rise in Africa, like the sun from the morning clouds.

Toivo ja Toivo

Toivo was born in 1925 and educated at an Anglican Mission school in Ovambo
land in the mandated territory of South West Africa (Namibia). He became a
teacher until, in 1951, he went to Cape Town. There he became politically active
and, as regional secretary of what later became the S.W.A. People`s Organisation
(SWAPO) in 1954 and 1958, he petitioned the United Nations on behalf of his
people. He was ordered to leave the Cape and restricted to the Ondonga tribal
area in Namibia. He was among the 35 Namibians arrested in 1966 and deported to
Pretoria where they were brutally interrogated before being brought to trial
under retroactive legislation, the Terrorism Act.

During the trial, which lasted from August 1967 to February 1968, Toivo made
a statement from the dock:

"We find ourselves here in a foreign country, convicted under laws made
by people whom we have always considered as foreigners. We find ourselves tried
by a judge w ho is not our countryman and who has not shared our background....

We are Namibians and not South Africans. We do not now, and will not in the
future, recognize your right to govern us, to make laws for us in which we have
no say; to treat our country as if it were your property and us as if you were
our masters....

We are far away from our homes; not a single member of our families has come
to visit us, never mind be present at our trial....

The South African Government has again shown its strength by detaining us for
as long as it pleased, keeping some of us in solitary confinement for 300 to 400
days and bringing us to its capital to try us. It has shown its strength by
passing an Act especially for us and having it made retrospective. It has even
chosen an ugly name to call us by. One`s own are called patriots, or at least
rebels; your opponents are called terrorists....

We know that whites do not think of blacks as politicians--only as agitators.
Many of our people, through no fault of their own have had no education at all.
This does not mean that they do not know what they want....

Our grievances are called `so-called` grievances. We do not believe South
Africa is in South West Africa in order to provide facilities and work for non
whites. It is there for its own selfish reasons. For the first 40 years it did
practically nothing to fulfil its `sacred trust`. It only concerned itself with
the welfare of the whites.

Since 1962 because of the pressure from inside by the non-whites and
especially my organisation, and because of the limelight placed on our country
by the world, South Africa has been trying to do a bit more. It rushed the
Bantustan Report so that it would at least have something to say at the World
Court.

Only one who is not white and has suffered the way we have can say whether
our grievances are real or `so-called`.

Those of us who have some education, together with our uneducated brethren,
have always struggled to get freedom....

Your Government, my Lord, undertook a very special responsibility, when it
was awarded the mandate over us after the First World War. It assumed a sacred
trust to guide us towards independence and to prepare us to take our place among
the nations of the world.

We believe that South Africa has abused that trust because of its belief in
racial supremacy (that white people have been chosen by God to rule the world)
and apartheid. We believe that for 50 years South Africa had failed to promote
the development of our people. Where are our trained men? The wealth of our
country has been used to train your people for leadership and the sacred duty of
preparing the indigenous people to take their place among the nations of the
world has been ignored....

I do not claim that it is easy for men of different races to live at peace
with one another. I myself had no experience of this in my youth, and at first
it surprised me that men of different races could live together in peace. But
now I know it to be true and to be something to which we must strive.

The South African Government creates hostility by separating people and
emphasizing their differences. We believe that by living together, people will
learn to lose their fear of each other. We also believe that this fear which
some of the whites have of Africans is based on their desire to be superior and
privileged and that when whites see themselves as part of South West Africa,
sharing with us all its hopes and troubles, then that fear will disappear.
Separation is said to be a natural process. But why, then, is it imposed by
force, and why then is it the whites have the superiority?

I have come to know that our people cannot expect progress as a gift from
anyone, be it the United Nations or South Africa. Progress is something we shall
have to struggle and work for. And I believe that the only way in which we shall
be able and fit to secure that progress is to learn from our own experience and
mistakes.

Your Lordship emphasized in your judgement the fact that our arms came from
communist countries and also that words commonly used by communists were to be
found in our documents. But my Lord, in the documents produced by the State,
there is another type of language. It appears even more often than the former.
Many documents finish up with an appeal to the Almighty to guide us in our
struggle for freedom. It is the wish of the South African Government that we
should be discredited in the Western world. That is why it calls our struggle a
communist plot; but this will not be believed by the world. The world knows that
we are not interested in ideologies.

We feel that the world as a whole has a special responsibility towards us.
This is because the land of our fathers was handed over to South Africa by a
world body. It is a divided world, but it is a matter of hope for us that it at
least agrees about one thing--that we are entitled to freedom and justice.

Other mandated territories have received their freedom. The judgement of the
World Court was a bitter disappointment to us. We felt betrayed and we believed
that South Africa would never fulfil its trust. Some felt that we would secure
our freedom only by fighting for it. We knew that the power of South Africa is
overwhelming, but we also knew that our case is a just one and our situation
intolerable--why should we not receive our freedom ?

We are sure that the world`s efforts to help us in our plight will continue,
whatever South Africans may call us.

We do not expect that independence will end our troubles, but we do believe
that our people are entitled--as are all peoples--to rule themselves. It is not
really a question whether South Africa treats us well or badly, but that South
West Africa is our country and we wish to be our own masters.

There are some who will say that they are sympathetic with our aims, but that
they condemn violence. I would answer that I am not by nature a man of violence
and I believe that violence is a sin against God and my fellow men. SWAPO itself
was a non-violent organization, but the South African Government is not truly
interested in whether opposition is violent or non-violent. It does not wish to
hear any opposition to apartheid.

Is it surprising that in such times my countrymen have taken up arms?
Violence is truly fearsome, but who would not defend his property and himself
against a robber? And we believe that South Africa has robbed us of our country.

I have spent my life working in SWAPO, which is an ordinary political party
like any other.

My Lord, you found it necessary to brand me as a coward. During the Second
World War, when it became evident that both my country and your country were
threatened by the dark clouds of Nazism, I risked my life to defend both of
them, wearing a uniform with orange bands on it.

But some of your countrymen when called to battle to defend civilisation
resorted to sabotage against their own fatherland. I volunteered to face German
bullets, and as a guard of military installations, both in South West Africa and
the Republic, was prepared to be the victim of their sabotage. Today they are
our masters and are considered the heroes, and I am called the coward.

When I consider my country, I am proud that my countrymen have taken up arms
for their people and I believe that anyone who calls himself a man would not
despise them.

I had no answer to the question: `Where has your non-violence got us` ?
Whilst the World Court judgement was pending, I at least had that to fall back
on. When we failed, after years of waiting, I had no answer to give to my
people.

Even though I did not agree that people should go into the bush, I could not
refuse to help them when I knew that they were hungry. I even passed on the
request for dynamite. It was not any easy decision. Another man might have been
able to say `I will have nothing to do with that sort of thing`. I was not, and
I could not remain a spectator in the struggle of my people for their freedom.

I am a loyal Namibian and I could not betray my people to their enemies. I
admit that I decided to assist those who had taken up arms. I know that the
struggle will be long and bitter. I also know that my people will wage that
struggle, whatever the cost.

Only when we are granted our independence will the struggle stop. Only when
our human dignity is restored to us, as equals of the whites, will there be
peace between us....

My co-accused and I have suffered. We are not looking forward to our
imprisonment. We do not, however, feel that our efforts and sacrifice have been
wasted. We believe that human suffering has its effect even on those who impose
it. We hope that what has happened will persuade the whites of South Africa that
we and the world may be right and they may be wrong. Only when white South
Africans realize this and act on it, will it be possible for us to stop our
struggle for freedom and justice in the land of our birth".

Toivo was sentenced to twenty years` imprisonment.

Eliaser Tuhadeleni

Father of seven children, a market gardener and cattle owner, Tuhadeleni was
a member of SWAPO`s executive. He was accused Number 1 in the 1967--1968 trial
of 35 Namibians.

To the court in Pretoria, he said:

"I only reached Standard 3 at school and I was convinced that neither
I nor my people could progress without education. And so in 1949 I went to the
Transvaal to try to gain admission at Stofberg College. I failed to do so and
I went to work in Cape Town.

Working in this great city showed me how backward my people were and how
urgently they needed education and progress. I was determined to work for this
progress. I returned in 1954 to Ovamboland but spent some two years in
hospital with tuberculosis.

I left hospital with the situation of poverty and ignorance in my mind and
in 1955 when the late Dr. Verwoerd visited Ovamboland I thought here is the
man in charge of our affairs: here is my opportunity to take our problems to
this powerful man.

I found, however, that we Ovambos were ignorant of procedure and poorly
educated and this handicapped us. I spoke to the Commissioner and told him
that the Ovambos needed education and training. I believed that this was the
way for our future. The Commissioner agreed and I was encouraged and believed
that this progress would come.

Then came bitter years. I found that the chiefs and headmen who control us
were not interested in discussion at tribal meetings and not prepared to lead
the people towards education. Those who spoke out at tribal meetings of our
poverty and ignorance were branded as agitators and victimized and not heeded.
And in this the chiefs and headmen had the support of the Commissioners and
the Government.

Instead of leading us to independence the South Africans were making us
part of South Africa in which the white man is master.

I came to realize that we could expect no progress from those who ruled us
and that my children could expect no better from life than I had. I thought
that we would only gain respect when we ruled ourselves and that we could only
make progress when we controlled our own country. I knew that our people were
poor but I also knew from the history of my people that they would struggle to
better themselves.

A peaceful struggle was not possible. We of SWAPO were not allowed to hold
meetings and our leaders were victimized.

I believed that we must take up arms for the freedom of my people to
liberate it from poverty and ignorance. And so I went to the bushes with the
others.

The decision to take up arms against South Africa was a troublesome one to
me. I am proud of being a South West African and I am especially proud because
of the history of my people. My people has a tradition of peace, both in its
own affairs and with its neighbours. The place or area settled by a clan or
group of families is called Omkunda which means `It Has Been Discussed` and
the area settled by a tribe is called Oshilongo, meaning `It Has Been Done`.
That is how we have conducted our affairs, by discussion and agreement.

But we find ourselves a conquered people and the master does not discuss
with the slave. And so we shall free ourselves and then discussion will again
take place between equals.

Our struggle against South Africa is an unequal one.... But David slew
Goliath because he had right on his side, and we Namibians have faith that we,
too, have right on our side".

Tuhadeleni was sentenced to life imprisonment.

James April

James Edward April was born in Cape Town in 1940. A former student at the
University of Cape Town, he was charged in 1971 on four counts under the
Terrorism Act, including involvement in guerrilla activities in Rhodesia.

In a statement in mitigation of sentence to the Supreme Court in
Pietermaritzburg on 10 May 1971, he said:

"Whenever people are in despair they resort to violence. Violence
becomes an act of hope. History shows repeated examples of people struggling
and fighting for freedom. Most people in the world today are struggling for
freedom, and even in the most stable societies there are strikes and violence.
You must realise that these people will not tolerate apartheid.

The ANC is a great movement. It is the spirit of the African people. As
long as you do not satisfy the aspirations of the African people you will
never crush the ANC, in spite of the fascist Security Police.

When I returned to South Africa I was tired and played out. This led to my
capture. I wish to stress that it was this, and not the ingenuity of the
Security Police, that led to my arrest.

During my interrogation by the Security Police I was kept in solitary
confinement and beaten up. Even though I answered many of their questions
there was nothing to please them. This once again proved to me that there are
fascist thugs in the Security Police.

Solutions to South Africa`s problems can truly be found, but only on a
democratic basis, and not on a democracy imposed upon a majority by a minority
which has within it a secret Broederbond fascist society.

You whites must realise that eventually you will have to stay in South
Africa. You may find that even South Africa will become too small for you. You
will have a rough time for the next few years. The prospects for the ANC too
are grim, but time is on our side, I guarantee it. Change will take place in
our favour, even if there is a world war.

The African people will be victors over the fascist South African
Government. Inevitably we shall overcome.

I did these things because I believed I was right. I am still prepared to
face the consequences of my actions".

James April was sentenced to fifteen years` imprisonment.

Mosioua Gerard Patrick Lekota

Born in 1949, Lekota was Accused Number 2 in the SASO (South African Students
Organisation) trial held in Pretoria from January 1975 to December 1976. An
active member of SASO at the University of the North, Turfloop, in 1973 he had
been elected Permanent Organiser. He and twelve others were charged under the
Terrorism Act and General Laws Amendment Act after being held incommunicado for
periods ranging from 85 to 129 days.

Lekota told the Court why he was pleading "Not Guilty":

"My activities in SASO far from being terroristic, have comprised the
following: through our literary works we have tried to work towards instilling
a spirit of self-pride, of dignity in the black community; we have done this
by constantly addressing ourselves to the black peoples of this country,
relating ourselves to the black experience, high-lighting the inherent duties
of that experience, and that life.

Over the years we have worked relentlessly through our community
development programmes ... we have built schools, clinics, dams.... This work
was done publicly before everybody, even the Security Police, who happened to
have always been very interested in our activities, and it is a fact that a
large quantity of our literature has been with the Security Police for years
now. If all this work were to be terroristic, I would be guilty, but in my
view there is nothing terroristic about it. All I see here is a genuine effort
by the black youth to make of his own people a people before the world, to
make use of our lives to build our people, people who have been misused and
disowned....

Incidentally, even in our writings, our work, we have hardly ever addressed
ourselves to white people, we have addressed ourselves continuously to the
black peoples of this country, because we felt that is where our task is. And
by the way, even the law of this country directed that our responsibility is
towards our people, and that we have got nothing to do with white people....
"

Lekota was found guilty with eight others, including Maitshe Mokoape, of
conspiring to endanger law and order, and organising "Viva FRELIMO"
rallies in 1974 "with intent to encourage racial hostility". Their
primary object, said the Judge, was the liberation of the black people. He was
sentenced to six years` imprisonment.

Maitshe Nchaupe Aubrey Mokoape

Born in 1948, Mokoape is a doctor, married and with two daughters. A founder
member of the Black People`s Convention (BPC) and of SASO, he was banned under
the Suppression of Communism Act. He was Number 3 among those accused in the
SASO trial from January 1975 to December 1976.

He explained to the Court his plea of "Not Guilty", describing the
indictment under the Terrorism Act as "a malicious publication, a political
frame-up calculated to intimidate Black people and to buy time for White baasskap
(supremacy)":

"My co-accused and I have been charged with conspiring to overthrow
the State by violence, when not once have we resorted to surreptitious
plotting. We have at all times proclaimed our gospel of Black Consciousness
publicly and forthrightly. We have deplored in no uncertain terms the violence
that is meted out against our people in the name of baasskap: the
violence of the pass laws, the violence of starvation wages, the violence of
forced removals.

We as black people have experienced too much violence in this country to
wish to perpetuate the evil in any way. We have been charged with inciting
racial hostility when that is precisely what we fought.... We have fought
policies that reduce our people to mere slavery, that humiliate our people in
the streets, in their homes. We have never done anything clandestinely, the
Black Consciousness movement is distinguished for its forthrightness and its
fierce independence of thought.... We proclaim the arrival of the new black
man, whose thinking is unfettered by feelings of inferiority, in whose
vocabulary the word baas is expunged, who refuses to sit on the sidelines
whilst important decisions are being taken about him, such as the
fragmentation and the mutilation of our country into Xstans, Ystans and
Zstans. All this we fought without resort to criminal acts.

If in our pursuit for the full blossoming of our lives we have offended
others, we cannot offer an apology, for such offence can only be the result of
their own deep guilt complexes and their paranoid fears. We have never sought
anything that belonged to others, we have sought alone those things that
belong to us by right of birth in the country of our forebears".

Mokoape was among those sentenced to six years` imprisonment.

Raymond Suttner

Born in 1945, Raymond Sorrel Suttner was educated at the University of Cape
Town. In 1972 he was appointed Lecturer in Law at the University of Natal. He
published many papers and lectured abroad on African law, the status of African
women and other legal subjects. In November 1975 he pleaded guilty to two counts
of contravening the Suppression of Communism Act; of having encouraged others to
join the ANC and to help produce pamphlets for that illegal organisation.

To Durban Supreme Court, Suttner declared:

"From my earliest encounters with black people I have been aware of
the contrast between my own living circumstances and theirs. I felt that it
could not be right that some people, merely because they were black, should
have to live with less than they needed. In my home background I was
encouraged to treat all human beings with dignity and respect.... At school
and especially at university I used every opportunity to argue against racism
and for a common society where black and white could live together in peace
and justice. Despite what I heard from most whites I came to feel that equal
rights was not something to be feared but the basis for real security.: . .

The suppression of the ANC, the Communist Party and other allies in the
liberation movement has meant that we do not hear calls for equality in one
undivided South Africa, as frequently as we should . . . [Because of this] I
have been cut off from information about them for most of my life.... In
trying to find a meaningful political role in our situation, I sought
information about the ANC and its allies. When I read their literature and
heard their aims, I saw that they did not, as their detractors suggested,
advocate indiscriminate violence nor the setting up of a tyrannical regime, I
found that they had simple aims--to make a new society that would benefit not
a few, but all....

My own political experience, mainly as a university student, and what I
knew of our political history, led me to conclude that radical criticism, no
matter how valid, is either ignored, rejected as illegitimate or
suppressed....

For many years I participated in protest activities--organising petitions,
holding placards, marching and various other demonstrations against racial
discrimination. None of these or similar protests had any effect.... Leaders
were banned or arrested without trial. Around 1969 I started to ask myself
whether I was doing this out of habit or whether these activities were
achieving anything. The Minister of Education had left few illusions about
their impact when he said in one statement that student petitions went
straight into his waste-paper basket. Every year new laws made protest more
difficult. Yet every year seemed to make opposition more necessary....

What I heard and read strengthened the admiration I had felt for the
selflessness and dedication of men like Albert Luthuli, Bram Fischer, Nelson
Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Kathrada and Denis Goldberg.... I
came to feel that I could contribute most by aiding the ANC and its allies. I
came to believe that the course they followed was the only way to achieve
freedom in our country. It is true that this means supporting a policy
including the use of violence. The law under which I am charged does not ask
the court to enquire what precipitated the violence.... Yet there are factors
in the ANC decision that make it abundantly clear that they did not desire
violence, that they use it reluc tantly. ANC strategies are aimed at
minimising conflict and promoting democracy.... Certain types of actions such
as terrorism or undisciplined heroic acts, even if well-motivated, are
rejected as exacerbating the bitterness and hostility....

The work I have done for the freedom movement made rigorous demands, It was
not pleasant to spend my spare time licking envelopes, duplicating, typing,
sticking stamps. Most of the time I did this work on my own.... The goals for
which I worked warranted whatever sacrifices were required. It is obvious that
these activities had to be carried out in secret, that I had to conceal them
from closest friends and family.... Though I would have been pleased to debate
these ideas freely, I could not jeopardise the security of my organisations
and others involved....

Normally I would consider it wrong to break laws.... But I have acted
against laws that do not serve the majority of South Africans, laws that
inculcate hostility between our people and preclude the tolerance and
co-operation that is necessary to a contented and peaceful community....

I have acted in the interest of the overwhelming majority of our people. I
am confident that I have their support".

Suttner was sentenced to seven and a half years.

Mosima Gabriel Sexwale

ACCUSED Number 1 in the trial of the "Pretoria 12", Sexwale was
born in Soweto on 5 March 1953, the third in a family of six children. He
attended a Roman Catholic primary school and later studied at the University of
Swaziland.

In the trial, which lasted from mid 1977 until April 1978, he was found
guilty under the Terrorism Act of conspiracy to endanger the maintenance of law
and order, a conspiracy which included his being trained at ANC military camps
in Tanzania and Russia, and his instructing others in the use of firearms and
explosives. The main act in the conspiracy arose from his throwing a hand
grenade at --and seriously injuring--two policemen who had accosted him and
three companions after their illegal return to South Africa, carrying arms and
explosives.

To the court in Pretoria, Sexwale said:

"I have not tried to escape responsibility for anything that I did;
but now that I have been convicted--and I knew from the beginning that I would
be convicted --I want to explain my actions so that you should understand why
I chose to join the struggle for the freedom of my people.

During most of my childhood in Soweto, the sole breadwinner in our family
was my father. He had fought for his country and for his ideals during World
War II, and when the peace returned he was employed as a clerk in the `Non
European` section of the Johannesburg General Hospital. He has continued in
this position up to this day.

My mother was willing and able to work and indeed needed to work in order
to supplement my father`s meagre income. However, she had been born in
Pietersburg and had come to live in the `prescribed area` of Johannesburg only
after she had married my father. As a result, she was not able to obtain the
required permission from the authorities to work in Johannesburg.... Then my
uncle passed away and my father had to take over his family responsibility.
This meant another six children.... At about this time, my mother finally
received permission to work, and this relieved the desperate situation to some
extent....

My childhood friends were in much the same sort of situation. We lived in
poverty and we were all subjected to the humiliation which the whites imposed
upon the blacks. We lived in the same typical `matchbox` houses; we were
continually aware that there was not enough money available to meet our needs
for food, clothing and education; and when we went into town and saw the
relative luxury in which white people lived, this made an indelible impression
on our young minds. There was one respect in which, in comparison with some of
my friends, I was privileged: my parents laid great store by education and
made considerable sacrifices so that their children could receive a proper
schooling . . . and there were real financial problems because school for
black children was not free, and school uniforms and books added a further
burden....

It was during my primary school years that the bare facts concerning the
realities of South African society and its discrepancies began to unfold
before me. I remember clearly having to go to school without breakfast because
my family could not afford it. The meal of the day was in the evening, and
that meal was usually all I had to eat until the next evening. I remember,
too, a period in the early 1960s when there was a great deal of political
tension, and we often used to encounter armed police in Soweto. We saw slogans
painted on walls -- I remember particularly vividly a slogan reading `Release
Nelson Mandela and Others`. I remember the humiliation to which my parents
were subjected by whites in shops and in other places where we encountered
them and I remember the poverty....

By the time I went to Orlando West High School I was already beginning to
question the injustice of the society in which we lived, and to ask why
nothing was being done to change it. In this too, I was not unusual.
Throughout the universities and high schools of South Africa, the South
African Students` Organisation (SASO) and the South African Students` Movement
(SASM), were very active in preaching the philosophy of Black Consciousness.
Very many of us felt the need for blacks to have a sense of pride in
themselves, to abandon old feelings of inferiority, and to stand together. I
became an active participant . . . I rapidly appreciated, however, that this
activity was all very well, but these were only student organisations. Our
efforts were small and ineffective and had no influence on Government policy.
I realised that it was only political organisations which could hope to play a
part in changing the situation. But these had been banned and silenced.
Existing organisations were tolerated either because they operated within the
restrictive limits of the unacceptable `Bantustan policy`, or because they had
little popular support.... It was clear to me that as an organisation like the
Black Peoples` Convention grew, so it would be increasingly harrassed, until
it would be finally closed down by the Government--as indeed happened.

The oldest and largest political organisation was the African National
Congress. There were many former members living in the townships and the ANC
was a common topic of discussion. I talked to former members, read whatever
literature I could lay my hands on, and generally informed myself about its
ideals, its history and activities. The ideals appealed to me as authentic,
rational and highly democratic.... I learnt that the Government replied to all
peaceful efforts with violence and by banning the organisation. I learnt that
this, in turn, led to the end of the ANC`s non-violent policy and to the
decision in 1961 to turn to the use of force. I sympathised with this
decision: I felt that the black people could not simply sit back and fold
their hands--and that one could not meet the Government`s machine guns with
empty hands....

The non-violent struggle seemed to me a relic of the past, a myth which was
suicidal in the 1960s and 1970s. And I supported the policy as set out in the
Freedom Charter: a democratic South Africa, belonging to all its people, black
and white--a society in which all, and not just the select few, participated
in deciding how the country was to be run.

While I was a student in Swaziland, I met exiled members of the ANC and my
views were confirmed. I observed the ever increasing unemployment amongst
blacks in South Africa: the poverty and degradation in which they lived and
the refusal of the whites who ruled us to allow blacks a fair share in the
wealth of the country. I saw how immigrants were welcomed and given jobs from
which we as blacks were excluded and I saw and witnessed the suffering of my
people. And so it was that I decided to join the ANC, and offer it my
services.

I did this not for the hope of personal gain or glory, or in a casual
manner with out thinking about the consequences. I was, and am, essentially a
peaceful person --but I felt myself driven to this position, feeling that to
counter the violence meted out against us, we were forced to defend ourselves:
there was no option.

It is true that I was trained in the use of weapons and explosives. The
basis of my training was in sabotage, which was to be aimed at institutions
and not people. I did not wish to add unnecessarily to the grievous loss of
human life that had already been incurred. In addition, it was necessary for
us to be trained in order that we could defend ourselves if attacked. And
finally, we wished to build up a core of trained men who would be able to lead
others should guerrilla warfare commence.

It has been suggested that our aim was to annihilate the white people of
this country. Nothing could be further from the truth. The ANC--in association
with the alliance it has formed with people from all walks of life and
representing all sections of the population--is a national liberation movement
committed to the liberation of all the people of South Africa, black and
white, from racial fear, hatred and oppression. The Freedom Charter, which
after more than twenty years is still the fundamental policy document of the
ANC, puts forward the ideal of a democratic South Africa, for all its people.
We believe, and I believe, that the black people cannot be passive onlookers
in their own country. We want to be active participants in shaping the face
and course of direction of South Africa.

My lord, these are the reasons why I find myself in the dock today. When I
joined the ANC I realised that the struggle for freedom would be difficult and
would involve sacrifices. I was and am willing to make those sacrifices. I am
married and have one child, and would like nothing more than to have more
children, and to live with my wife and children with all the people in this
country. One day that may be possible, if not for me, then at least for my
brothers.

I appreciate the seriousness of my actions and accept whatever sentence may
be imposed on me. That is the sacrifice which I must make and am willing to
make for my ideals. There is no doubt in my mind that these ideals will
triumph; the tragedy is that it seems possible that there will be continued
conflict and resultant bitterness, before those ideals are achieved".

Sexwale was sentenced to eighteen years` imprisonment.

Naledi Tsiki

Accused Number 2 in the trial of the "Pretoria 12", Tsiki was born
in Johannesburg on 11 December 1955. From the age of six he lived with grand
parents who were peasants in Lesotho, spending school holidays with his parents
in Soweto. On 5 April 1978 he was convicted of conspiracy under the Terrorism
Act: specifically, of undergoing military training in the Soviet Union, and,
after illegally returning to South Africa, of sabotaging a railway line, of
instructing others in the use of firearms, recruiting and encouraging them to
undergo military training with the ANC.

In the course of his statement to the Court he said:

"From 1971 to 1973 I did my junior secondary schooling in Lesotho....
I had contact with various groups of people, some of whom were white. They did
not have the same attitude towards me as the white people I came across in
South Africa....

I read more about the struggle our people had waged against oppression in
South Africa. I read about the activities of the ANC . . . also Chief Albert
Luthuli`s book, Let My People Go, . . . about how our people used passive
resistance to release themselves from the yoke of oppression. But most
unfortunately this meekness was met in most cases with overwhelming shows of
strength and violence by the powers that be. Despite these factors, our people
led by the ANC kept on waging a non-violent struggle. Indeed the ANC spent
most of its lifetime engaged in the strategy of non-violence, until it was
forcibly sent underground by those who have the power to do so....

In 1974 I went to attend the Morris Isaacson High School in Soweto. It had
very poor facilities. The dilapidated building hardly had any doors or window
panes, not to speak of the inadequate classrooms. There were no laboratories
for science students, of whom I was one, and neither was there a library in
the true sense of the word. That made it very difficult for most students to
study and pass their exams, coupled with the fact that we had to buy our own
textbooks which most could hardly afford.

My lord, one need only travel to the nearest white school from Soweto to
see the adequate studying facilities, not to mention the almost luxurious
recreational facilities which are but a mere dream to a black student.

As a young man, I would have liked to advance myself so that I could secure
myself a desirable future. But the question I had to ask myself was what were
the prospects ? This is the question that brings about frustration bordering
on desperation to a great majority of young blacks. I knew that I could not be
what I really wanted to be if in the opinion of the powers that be, such an
occupation was unfit for blacks. That is to say if I wanted to be a pilot,
having the necessary intelligence and ability, I still needed a further
feature before I could qualify. That is, in order to be a pilot I would have
to be a white man. I could not be a manager of a firm which employed whites,
and neither could I be in charge of a hospital regardless of my
qualifications.... And, my lord, without wishing to be offensive to the Court,
I should frankly say that I know of no black judge in South Africa. I could
not hold any of these positions for the sole reason of the colour of my
skin....

I should also let the Court know that the economic and social conditions of
the blacks in this country are such that no normal person or right thinking
person could tolerate them. In Soweto where I lived, I have seen children die
because of malnutrition. I have seen my people slaughter one another so as to
get bread in order to survive. In my own family I have seen my brothers and
uncles going endlessly to town in a fruitless search for work. I have seen my
own father struggle to bring us up. In as far as housing is concerned, one
need only look at Alexandra Township, crime-ridden, foul-smelling with the
long-forgotten walks being used for sanitary purposes. It hardly compares with
the posh white suburb, Kew, just 300 metres away. These things have not passed
unabsorbed in my mind.

It is a well-known fact that South Africa is a very wealthy country. I came
to realise that the blacks were to produce the wealth of this country, not for
their own benefit, but primarily for the benefit of the white people. The vast
plantations of fruit in this country are planted and tended by the black
people and yet it is the white people who enjoy it while blacks cannot afford
to buy it. The gold that has made this country is mined by us, and yet it is
the white people who pocket the cash. The towering buildings that make the
beautiful cities have been built by our hands, yet we may not live in them. We
blacks have been reduced to hewers of wood and drawers of water. All the
luxuries are destined for the whites. This situation has directly affected me
as a black man.

Eventually, I came to believe that the hardships we suffered were caused by
the system of apartheid. I found it to be a system which ensures the security
of the white people by oppressing the black people. A system which makes an
inferior being and a servant of one man, and a master of another man, simply
because one is black and the other is white. A system which makes it
punishable by law for two people of different skin pigments to be lovers, lest
the inferior defile the superior.

I found it vital as a young black man to relieve my people of apartheid.

The question that became prime in my mind was how to bring about change
such as would ensure the social, economic and political security of both
blacks and whites in this country. That is, how could genuine democracy be
achieved in South Africa?

I knew that there were organisations like SASO [South African Students`
Organisation], SASM [South African Students` Movement], BPC [Black Peoples`
Convention], and others; they were merely doing what the ANC had done before
it was banned. They would one day suffer the same fate of banning, which
indeed did happen. It also became clear to me that whoever stood and publicly
opposed the government policies from a position not created by the government
itself, would be detained, banned, jailed, or forced into exile. This was
certainly not going to change the situation in this country. So I found it
worthless to join any of those organisations--I did not want to go to jail for
merely talking. I had read the wording of the Freedom Charter of the ANC. I
found that the sentiments expressed therein were in complete harmony with my
own feelings. The type of limited violence the ANC had decided to embark on
seemed to me the only way out of that political impasse.

I subsequently joined the ANC in December 1975 when I left the country. At
the time, there was a great need for a sense of discipline and responsibility
so as to control the bursting anger of the black youth and to avoid terrorism
in the true sense of the word.

I was therefore trained to be in a position to defend the unarmed should
the need arise, and to train others to be in a position to defend themselves.
I was taught methods of sabotage against installations, and I was trained to
be competent in waging warfare should the need to fight arise. One thing was
paramount in what I was taught: that the lives of innocent civilians, of
whatever colour, should not be placed in jeopardy.

The incident [of sabotage of a railway line at Dikgale] was firstly
intended to show specifically the police and the army how far we could
penetrate if we were forced to do so and what our capabilities were. The Court
has heard of how the railway was damaged and how trains passed over the
damage. To a person who lacks the necessary technical know-how this may seem
to have been the result of a miscalculation, but this is not so. The charges
were deliberately placed in such a way that no substantial damage should
result....

Despite what has been done to my people at Sharpeville, Soweto and several
other places, my reaction has not been that of emotionalism. It would be
unacceptable to me to go out and shoot children and their unsuspecting parents
simply because they are white. That would be sheer terrorism, to which both I
and the organisations to which I belong are opposed.

The question of armed struggle seemed to me to be unavoidable and
regrettably the only way out as far as I was concerned. That was so because of
the uncompromising attitude of the people who governed us. I will never cease
to admire the courage of those South Africans who were prepared to take up
arms to rid themselves of unwanted British imperialism [in the Anglo Boer War
1899-1902].

I would have loved to live with my people and my family. I now leave my
young wife, my ailing mother, my struggling father and my beloved brothers and
sisters. This is not because I so chose, but because I had a duty towards my
people.

What I did, I did with my eyes open. By so doing, I was merely trying to
make my contribution towards a free and democratic South Africa, free of
racism, humiliation and exploitation, a South Africa belonging to all who live
in it, regardless of race, colour or creed. To this ideal I have given myself
and what ever the consequences I accept them".

Tsiki was sentenced to fourteen years` imprisonment.

Martin Rafefo Ramokgadi

Accused Number 6 in the trial of the "Pretoria 12", Ramokgadi was
68 years old at the time of conviction. Born in Johannesburg in 1910, he grew up
in Alexandra Township and went to school there, then to St. Peter`s,
Rosettenville. In 1953 he started a general dealer`s business in Alexandra. On 5
April 1978 he was convicted of receiving funds for the outlawed ANC and sending
and receiving messages to and from the ANC in Swaziland: therefore of conspiracy
under the Terrorism Act.

He told the Court he neither blamed the Judge for the sentence, for he must
apply the law as instructed by the law-makers, nor the "unfortunate"
people who had given evidence against him:

"I know how they suffered under Section Six detention. There is no one
who has undergone that detention and who has not told lies as a result . . .
there is no hell worse than that. I myself told lies against innocent people
in statements I made to the police while under Section Six detention.

Some of the charges against me were falsely framed and some of the evidence
was farfetched and untrue....

Politically I have many grievances against the Nationalist Government but
not against the whites as such. The Government has stripped the black man of
all his possessions and introduced a reign of terror against him. I was once a
landlord but my property was taken and my business was shattered when freehold
for black people was abolished. Blacks have been forced to move to the
wilderness called Bantustans where there are no industries, people starve and
malnutrition is part of life. In the townships, people are raided daily for
passes, permits and tax, doors are kicked open in the middle of the night, and
generally the police show no respect for family life. Education is inferior
and wages are low. It is in fact a sin to be a black man in South Africa.

The Afrikaners were once oppressed by Britain and they rightly, through
armed struggle, liberated themselves from British imperialism.... One day the
wheel will turn in favour of the black man.

I am a Christian and my Christian conviction is one of love towards my
fellow brethren irrespective of race, colour or creed. As I am totally opposed
to oppression, I have no reason not to support the liberation movements in
South Africa. Right shall prevail".

Ramokgadi was sentenced to seven years` imprisonment.

Isaac Dontry Seko

Seko was born in 1950. At the time of his arrest he was working for De Beers
Industrial Diamond Laboratory in Johannesburg. He was convicted under the
Terrorism Act of causing an explosion in the Carlton Centre, a shopping and
office centre in Johannesburg. Fellow-accused, Wellington Tshazibane, died while
in detention.

Seko explained to the court why he had not given evidence under oath:

"I fear that if I am to answer questions under oath truthfully, I will
necessarily have to implicate many other people and I fear, from my experience
whilst detained in terms of Section 6 of the Terrorism Act, that the
authorities will ruthlessly pursue these people and punish them. I don`t
believe they deserve punishment for their actions".

His supervisor at De Beers testified how Seko had changed after the Soweto
uprising of June 1976.

In a statement made in mitigation of sentence, Seko told the court that up to
the time of the unrest in Soweto, he had taken no interest in black or white
politics. He then described how this had changed:

"As I saw the situation with my own eyes, the police attacked, shot,
killed, wounded and seriously injured many scores of young black people,
mainly school children who were involved in nothing more than peaceful
protests.... This is how the unrest began. After the children were dealt with
by the police in this brutal fashion, there was a wave of bitterness and
hatred which spread through Soweto like wildfire against the police and the
persons on whose instructions they were acting.... In fact, war broke out in
Soweto....

I became more and more depressed and I decided that the best way out was to
ask for a transfer to a place outside Johannesburg.... My Lord, you don`t know
what it is like to know and believe that you should be taking part in actions
to help your people and yet to know and believe that in doing so the odds are
against you. I tried to take the easy way out, that was to get a transfer but
it did not work.... In Soweto it was like living in a prison which was a
battleground. It was relief to get away from it during the day, to go to work,
and it was hell to go back there at night.

The last straw happened on 24 October 1976. I attended a mass funeral for a
young black man who had died whilst in detention by the security police. His
name was Jacob Mashobane. Hundreds had gathered around the graveside where his
coffin had been laid and even as the soil was filling it up, amidst the
singing of a hymn, several cars drove up, the vigilantes of `law and order`
again, I have no doubt acting under instructions from their `bosses`, alighted
from these cars and triggers were pulled. People scattered, running for dear
life whilst others were brought down lifeless, some dead, some wounded. Those
who managed to scale the cemetery fence were gunned down by a contingent that
had stationed itself outside the cemetery.

When the crowd had scattered, myself and a few remaining ones were forced
at gunpoint to carry the dead and injured into carts and vans nearby. I
remember carrying a badly wounded boy of about fifteen years old. I asked him
for his name and address so that I could get in touch with his parents.... All
he could say was that he was thirsty. I never heard his name as he spoke no
more....

After this funeral I went to work on the Monday. I left work that morning
and never returned. I decided to commit myself fully to the cause of the black
people....

If I were to say that I am ashamed of what I have done, I would not be
telling the truth. If I were to be asked whether I would do this again, I
would not know how to answer truthfully today. I have been in detention for a
long time, I have suffered the shock and anguish of losing a limb. [Seko lost
part of an arm in the explosion]....

There are literally millions of young black people who today are being
driven to believe that the only basis of bargaining with the authorities is:
an eye for any eye. Unless the outside attitude of white people changes, these
millions will continue to believe this".

Seko was sentenced to five, twelve and twelve years, concurrently--in effect
to twelve years.

Stanley Nkosi

Born in 1949, one of seven children whose father, a tailor, struggled to earn
enough for their education, Nkosi matriculated in 1967 and, after working for
four years, could afford to continue his studies at the University of Kwazulu.
In 1975 he qualified as an attorney.

Under interrogation while in detention in 1976 he admitted forming an ANC
cell in Soweto and then being trained in the use of explosives in Swaziland. He
was convicted of possession of explosives and of being trained and training
others in their use, as well as storing certain books (including books by Che
Guevara, Eldridge Cleaver and James Baldwin).

Nkosi made a statement in mitigation of sentence in the course of which he
said:

"I grew up with a belief in law and justice. I qualified myself to
work within the framework of the law. Unfortunately the fine words and
sentiments about justice did not coincide with reality....

It is interesting to note that even as a lawyer I was expected to lead a
different life from other lawyers. Just at the front entrance of this very
court there is a sign that that entrance is for `whites only`.

By birth I`m a citizen of this country, but today I`m supposed to owe
allegiance to some other `country`--a country I`ve never seen [i.e. a
Bantustan or `Black Homeland`]....

The `white` ruling regime systematically pursues policies of apartheid,
separation and discrimination for the sole purpose of keeping the black people
in a perpetual state of subjugation.... Such a society is unjust, immoral,
undemocratic: only in a free and just society can I hope to see my ideal of
living realised.

I then researched the history of the black people in their attempt to
effect meaningful change, to establish a just society. I discovered the ANC
and was struck by its honest and sincere commitment towards peaceful change
even at times when it became obvious that the white regime was determined to
see that change never took place.... It was only when the ANC had been banned
from peacefully realising their objective that they painfully as a last
available means reconciled themselves to armed struggle.

[That] was in the 1960`s and here was I in the 70s still faced with the
problem of what to do to improve my lot and that of the black people as a
whole.... I became a member of SASO which was part of the black movement
peacefully engaged in legal political activity with the object . . . of
establishing a just, free society.... The reaction unleashed by the present
white regime left me in no doubt of the unwillingness and determination of
that regime to see that meaningful change never took place.

Only then I also reached that painful realisation that the only means now
avail able was armed struggle. The employment of violence is used as a shock
method to draw the attention of the whites of this country to the ghastly
alternative to peaceful change . . . violence more as a psychological means,
not aimed at the destruction of human life....

I honestly and sincerely believe in legality.... But when laws have as
their prime aim the protection and promotion of the interest of the few.... I
shall forever work towards the destruction of these laws until justice
prevails.

I was always aware of the prospect of imprisonment but as others before me
I had no alternative except to live as a man and in dignity".

Nkosi was sentenced to ten years` imprisonment.

Petrus Mothlanthe

Born in 1949, Mothlanthe was brought up with his two younger brothers in
Alexandra Township, where the family lived in one room. His father was a
messenger, and his mother a washerwoman. In 1959 the family was `re-settled` in
Meadowlands on the edge of Soweto, where his parents rented a four-roomed house.
Petrus had no right to live with them; under the law, he was made to obtain a
lodger`s permit. Leaving school in 1968 he got a job with the Johannesburg City
Council; the work-seeker`s permit in his pass read: "Permitted to be in the
prescribed area of Johannesburg whilst employed by the JCC".

He was convicted with Stanley Nkosi, of possessing explosives, of undergoing
training, and training others, in the use of explosives and of forming an ANC
cell.

When he spoke in mitigation of sentence, Mothlanthe described his situation,
as a young man in the city of his birth:

"The work-seeker`s permit in my pass . . . meant that I was a
migratory worker who is allowed to be in Johannesburg for as long as his
labour is needed. This, in spite of the fact that I`ve lived in Johannesburg
all my life. All my hopes of living decently were shattered by this stamp. My
self-respect and dignity were attacked every time I was arrested for a
technical pass law offence or residential permit offence .

Where I could go, the ability to own my own home in the area of my choosing
--these were denied me. I was subjected to rudeness by officials whose duty it
was to serve. Insults from whites were a standard part of my life.... My own
son who was born here in Johannesburg was classified as a citizen of Lebowa--a
place he has never seen. Like me, he is denied citizenship in the land of his
birth.

I did not want and do not want my son to be subject to the same laws,
discrimination and humiliation which I have experienced. I wanted a better
life for my wife, son and for all my people. I questioned for long hours what
I could do. I considered the approach of my father`s generation.... The
futility of the ANC`s efforts culminated in its banning . . . SASO, BPC, TRAYO
[Transvaal Youth Organisation] were weakened by arrests, raids and detentions
. . . all these organisations were violently dealt with, despite their
non-violent nature, by the Government.

The decision to resort to arms was a painful one, which I reached after
months of soul-searching and consideration as I am essentially a non-violent
person. My dearest wish is to co-exist peacefully with all other citizens of
South Africa . . .

The most important thing to me is not how long I live but how I live. Those
of us who love life as much as we love this country shall never cease to make
efforts for the attainment of liberty and equality regardless of creed, race
or colour. I am not the first and shall not be the last to be convicted for
this just cause".

Mothlanthe was sentenced to ten years` imprisonment.