1588 N.R. MANDELA. in Communist literature? ;.. I have, my lords. Now, Mr. Mandela, as you understand the National

Transcription

1 1588 N.R. MANDELA MB. KENTRIDGE; Have you not found that formulation in Communist literature? ;.. I have, my lords. Now, Mr. Mandela, as you understand the National African Congresspolicy, who will have power in the State? Well, as far as the Congresspolicy is concerned the power of the State will he in the hands of all sections of the people. Would the majority exercise power? The majority will exercise power. And if it so happens that the majority was an African majority, the African majority would exercise the 10 power? That is so. Now, Mr. Mandela, we were dealing yesterday with some of the books and documents... RUMPFF J; Do you know what the purpose of these lectures was? I understood, my lord, that the purpose of 15 the lectures was to stimulate discussion amongst members of the Congress movement5 it was to be a basis for discussion. BEKKER J; Do you know whether they were so used? My lord, I do not know if they were so used. 20 MR. KENTRIDGEs Now there was mention of some books which you had in your possession; I just want to refer to one or two of them, you don't need to put them in as exhibits. There was one which is marked NRK.85 end it is a book called "Marx against the Peasant" by 25 David letchuane (?); is that one of your own books? That is so. It has your name in it? That is so. Did you read this book? I did, my lords. What is it about? It's about the peasants in 30

2 N.R.MLEDELA the Soviet Union; it's a book that is anti-marxists Did you find it interesting? I found it interesting, although I didn't agree with it. Then do you have in your possession a hook called "Nehru on Africa"; a selection of speeches by the Prime Minister of India, that was MM.3 in the Court below? That is so. * Did you read this book? I did. There's one speech in here at page 15 cailed "Force no Solution", and that deals with Africa? Yes, Do you remember that speech? I do remember» Did you find yourself in agreement with that? Perhaps you'd like to look at this. Do you remember this? Yes, I remember. Towards the middle or end of it, it deals with Kenya, do you see that? I see that. Would you road out what it says there in connection with Kenya? "Let us now turn to the situation in East Africa. Dreadful things were happening there. The real thing was that Kenya was one of the most beautiful spots in the world with a fine climate and.... Englishmen had gone there and taken possession of all the land and driven the African people out, The rightful residents of the area, into what were called reserves. The holdings of the white settlers ranged from 50>000 acres to 100,000 acres. They have amassed huge wealth from the purchase of the land. The 5,000,000 Africans there have no say in any matter; even though driven to a state of complete helplessness by the white settlers the African people collected their every power and started hundreds of schools themselves. As a little

3 N.R. mandela education spread the voice of the people for their land 1 and rights also grew stronger. This resulted in a fight. Some people have formed a secret society called the Mau-Mau with the intent of killing white men and driving them out of Kenya. It might be that some people have killed a few white men. He did not know how many 5 were killed by Mau Mau men, but by way of retaliation the white settlers have let loose a reign of severe oppression against not only the guilty Mau Mau, but against hundreds of thousands of African people. This was a bad thing. It is clear that in this way the ^ African question cannot be solved in the present day or in the future. Nobody must suppress the African people. This question is bound to become a world ques-* tion if not immediately, within the course of a matter of a few years..." ^ Right, thank you. Now, Mr. Mandela, while we are dealing with the foreign affairs of in the speech of yours which we went through yesterday, there were references to India - the question of the whites being driven out of India, or the English being 20 driven out of India without a single shot being fired; there were references to Malaya - - in fact, were the English driven out of India in the literal sense? No, my lords. Or Malaya, as far as you know? Not as far as I know, my lords. Mr. Mandela, again if we may deal with your own views, earlier in this examination you indicated that there^aspects of the Soviet Union which you could admire, did admire. Bo you feel that you owe some sort 30

4 N.R. MANDELA of special loyalty to the Soviet Union? None at all, my lords. As far as the African National Congress is concerned - and I ask about the time when you were in it - have you got any reason to believe that the situation has changed since you left - - if so, you can qualify your answer - - but as you know the African National Congress was it aligned with any particular States in the world? No, my lords. Was it against Colonialism? It was against Colonialism, and I believe that it is still against Colonialism. Was it glad of support of its own aspirations from other countries? It was. Did it, while you were in it, have any sort of affiliation or connection with any other country? None whatsoever. Or with bodies in any other country? None whatsoever. You were already banned by the time the ban on conferences was held? That is so. As far as you could tell from your personal conversations or from the A.N e C. literature which you read, was the A.N.C. interested in Bandoon? It was. At the Bandoon conference we've had evidence here that an attitude was expressed condemning imperialism or colonialism everywhere? That is so. Does that appear to you to be in line with the policy of the African National Congress? That is so. My lords, that concludes my examination.

5 N.R.MANDELA There is no cross examination by other accused or their 1 Counsel. XXD. BY MR. HPESTER; Mr. Mandela, I am not quite clear on your attitude towards these lectures. When they were first mentioned by your Counsel I understood you to say that you agreed with everything that was said in these 5 lectures? The first two lectures. The first two lectures? Yes. And is the position then that in those two lectures - that those two lectures are fully representative of Congress policy as understood by you? Well, 10 I don't know if they are fully representative of Congress policy, but I can see nothing in those lectures which is inconsistent with Congresspolicy. Do you see anything in the third lecture which is inconsistent with Congress policy? Well, perhaps if 15 I went through the lecture clause by clause I might find things which go beyond Congress policy. Now it was put to you - that paragraph which is headed 'What is a Peoples Democracy'? Yes. As far as you know do countries like Poland, 20 Hungary, Czechoslovakia - the Peoples Republic of China - do they reveal these characteristics of a Peoples Democracy mentioned in the third lecture, as far as you know? That I don't know. I know very little about the internal conditions of those countries. 25 I just want torefresh your memory as far as the first lecture is concerned, paragraph and I want to put to you that this paragraph in a nutshell reveals the policy of the Congress movement generally, and the African National Congress in particular? 30

6 N.R. MANDELA My lords, could I be furnished with a copy? 1 Certainly. BEKKER J; Where does this appear in the record, Mr. Hoexter? MFc. HOEXTERs Yes, page 639, paragraph 13, my lords - line 19. "We live in a world divided into classes. 5 A small class of capitalists who own the interests of production,and a large class who work and are exploited. We live in a world divided into imperialist countries. England, America, France, Holland, Belgium, which oppress and exploit the Colonial countries in Africa, Asia and 10 South America. We live in a world divided into two sections: the section where capitalism rules and exploits the people, and the sector where the means of production have become the property of all peoples, and exploitation of man by man is being abolished. China, the lit.s.s.r. 15 Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Czechoslovakia. We live in a world aflame with the fight for freedom from imperialism and exploitation through which the people move steadily forward to a better life. Everywhere in every land working people have banded together to fight with all their 20 resources for their liberty, for their independence and for all the good things of life; the knowledge, the health, the prosperity and the comforts and security which the modern world con provide. It is the Congress movement which organises South Africans for this great 25 democratic struggle. Our Congress movement is part of a great world brotherhood for liberty", and then it says what must be done to burst out of the net of imperialist oppression. Now, Mr. Mandela, if a reader of these lectures should know, as you know, that the countries in 30

7 N.R.MANDELA Eastern Europe like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, l and Hungary are described as Peoples Democracies, then is it not clear what the third lecture means when it pleads for the establishment of a Peoples Democracy in South Africa? I don't agree, my lords* The third lecture goes on to describe what a Peoples Democracy is 5 and any reader of the third lecture does not have to go abroad - does not have to go outside the lecture in order to understand what the author means by a Peoples Democracy, It is explained in the third lecture, and I do not think that a person will necessarily think that the term Peoples 10 Democracy means those countries which have been referred to. Mandela, if he remains within the lecture, as you put it, what impression will he gain, that a Peoples Democracy approximates more closely on the one hand to 15 America, Prance, Holland* Belgium, or more closely to the Soviet Union, China, Hungary, Poland and so on? My lords, it's quite possible that there are people who may read the lecture who have never heard of thes<3 countries you mention, Czechoslovakia, China and so on, and 20 who would merely limit themselves to the explanation made by the writer of the lecture, as to what is the meaning of a Peoples Democracy. Of course, it is true that those countries which have been referred to refer to themselves as Peoples Democracies; and it would be 25 quite a possible inference for a person to make, rightly or wrongly, that a Peoples Democracy means a government like that of China, that of Hungary - - it is quite possible, rightly or wrongly, but what I say is this, that these lectures don't convey that impression at all. 30

8 N.R. MANDELA Because the term Peoples Democracy is defined in the lecture. Mandela, reading the three lectures together, what do you think is the probable impression on a reader? Frankly my own opinion is that this question is not open to doubt at all. There is set out the orecise meaning to be attached to the phrase Peoples Democracy, and I don't think it is a reasonable suggestion at all to suggest that a person reading these lectures necessarily must feel that the state we want is a state similar or identical to the states referred to. Mandela, if you look at the paragraph "What is a Peoples Democracy", if you look at those characteristic features, can you say that a Peoples Democracy as there described can be described as a State where exploitation of man by man is being abolished? I don't think so. The question is this, Mr. Mandela, the third lecture contains a paragraph "What is a Peoples Democracy" and then it sets out in sub-paragraphs (l) to (8) what the requirements are, Now, if such a State is created is it fair to describe it as a State bearing these features, and would such a State be a State in which exploitation of man by man has been abolished? Yes. Nov/, turning back to the last paragraph of the "World we live in", the one passage that has been read to you, the dividing line which is drawn... BEKKER Jg What reference? I've got it. MR. HOEXTER% Page 639 of the record..? Yes, The dividing line which is there drawn between

9 15890, N.R.MANDELA the two groups of countries, America, Prance, Holland, Belgium on the one hand, and China, the Soviet Union, the Eastern European countries - - the dividing line is that of exploitation. It says that in the first mentioned group there is oppression, capitalism rules, and exploits the people, and in the second group exploiation of man by man is being abolished? Yes. And you agree with me that the description of a Peoples Democracy contained in the last lecture, the hallmark of that description is also a State in which exploitation of man by man is being abolished? What is the page of the third lecture? Page 666 of the record? Yes, I've got it. RUMPFF J: Do you want Counsel to repeat his question? Yes, my lord. MR. HOEXTER; The question is this, Mandela. In the light of the admission you have just made, isn't the inference irrisistible that an ordinary reader looking at these three lectures asa whole, would come to the conclusion that the new kind of state which the Congress movement must build for itself is a State either identical with, or similar to either China, the Peoples Democracy of China, or the Soviet, or the State of Rumania, or Czechoslo vakia, or Hungary, or Poland? That may well be, my lord, it may well be. We are not interested in that. We want a change and this is what we mean by a Peoples Democracy. It may be similar to China, it may be identical; we are not interested. We want these changes and this is what we mean by a Peoples Democracy. Now, Mr. Mandela, it was put to you whether

10 N.R.MANDELA the Congress movement was prepared to a chieve this new State by a series of small concessions, the idea of equality, and you indicated that clearly the Congress movement was not prepared to achieve the State in that way? That is so. Do you agree with me that these lectures also jp deal with a very important point, namely whether the new State sought by the Congress Movement can be achieved at all by a process of small concessions, or whether it must come in one single bold stroke? Can you refer me to the passage? Yes, paragraph 4 of the last lecture; it's a paragraph headed "Is it possible"? I haven't got "Is it possble", I've got "How is it possible", Page 665 of the record - I think the title varies in some of the lectures. KENNEDY J; Well page 663 is "Is it possible" and 665 is "How is it possible". MR. HOEXTBBs I'm indebted to your lordship, it's the first one I'm referring to, on page 663, Mr. Mandela, 'Is it possible'. Now that says "Can such a radical sweeping change be made little by little, by one reform after another, by a long period of small concessions to the idea of race equality". Now pausing there, Mr. Mandela, you see the way in which the author poses the question? He doesn't say "Does Congress want to achieve it slowly or quickly"; he says "Can this change be achieved by gradual process.." He says "Let us look at South Africa as it is. Is it parliament alone that rules? Clearly it is not. A parliament that speaks only for a minority of the people could never

11 N.R. MANDELA have any real authority or be able alone to make its rule effective. Parliament is the only body that makes rules - that makes the laws for the ruling class, but its authority and its rule is upheld not by its support among the people, but by the armed force it controls. This force we call the State, it consists of many 10 things. It consists of the police, paid and armed to uphold the laws of the ruling class. It consists of the permanent army to back up the police whenever necessary, against the people at home, or enemies abroad who threaten the rule of the present ruling class. It con- ^ sists of the Judges and the Courts and the warders and the prisons who preside over pass laws and inflict punishment to see they are complied with. These special bodies of armed men s eparated from the daily lives and sufferings and needs of the people are the force which 20 makes up the State." Then it considers in the next paragraph certain other institutions which help the ruling class to prop up its rule, and then in the last paragraph it goes on to say: "It is clear that such a rule as this cannot be set aside by minor concessions and reforms. In the end such a State apparatus built up on a foundation of oppression and exploitation, and existing only to uphold oppression and exploitation, can never serve the ends of the people and of the Congress movement." Now, Mr. Mandela, this description of the State, have you encountered similar descriptions in the course of your political reading? Does this description of the State to your mind bear the stamp of any particular line of political thought, a school of political thought? My lords, I don't know if it bears any particular

12 15893 N.R. MANDELA stamp, but the first question you put to me I can answer. The statement that such radical changes cannot be expected by small concessions to the idea of race equality,that I agree with. I think it's a fair statement, as I have indicated. If the Government of the State says "We have three representatives for you in the House of Assembly, we now want you to have nine, ten or twenty" - I would not accept that, because it is not what I desire, I want the vote to be extended to me; I don't want anybody to represent me. To that extend, if the writer meant that m and I believe that is what he means» then I agree with him wholeheartedly. You cannot create the State we visualise by concessions* by European representation in Parliament. You will create that State if the vote is extended to all sections of the population. That we understand, Mr. Mandela. Now what I want to put to you is thiss do you think that your Peoples Democracy could be achieved by a process of gradual reforms? Suppose, as a result of pressure, the ruling classs were to agree next month to a qualified franchise for the Africans, an educational test perhaps - not a stringent one - - and next year, as a result of further pressure, a more important concession is made - - a further concession is made in 1962, and so on over a period of ten or twenty years - - do you think that the Peoples Democracy could be achieved in that fasion? Well, this is how I approach the question, I must explain at the outset that the Congress, as far as I know, has never sat down to discuss the question... BEKKEB Js I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'd just

13 N.R.MANDELA like the premise cleared on which we are at the moment. When you say as you see it, is it your personal view or are you interpreting this lecture as you see it? The question is related to the lecture. Is that correct or not, Mr. Hoexter? MR. HOEXTER: Everything so far, save this last question, I put this last one independently; I shall bear your lordship's remarks in mind in putting further questions. The last question was put without reference to the lecture? This is how I see the problem, I say the Congress, as far as I know it, has never set out to discuss the problem itself, but this is how I look at it. We demand universal adult franchise and we aye prepared to exert economic pressure to attain our demands, and we will launch defiance campaigns, stay at homes, either singly or together, while the Government should say, "Gentlemen, we cannot have this state of affairs, laws being defied, and this whole situation created by stay at homes. Let's talk. In my own view I would say Yes, let us talk, and the Governmwnt would say, "We think th-t the Europeans at present are not ready for a type of government where there might be domination by non- Europeans. We think we should give you 60 seats. The African population to elect 60 Africans to represent them in Parliament. We will leave the matter over for five years and we will review it at the end of five years." In my view, that would be a victory, my lords; we would have taken a significant step towards the attainment of universal adult suffrage for Africans, and we would then for the five years say, we will suspend civil

14 N.R. MANDELA disobedience; we won't have any stay at homes, and we will then devote the intervening period for the purpose of educat ing the country, the Europeans to see that these changes can be brought about and that it would bring about better racial understanding, better racial harmony in the country. I'd say we should accept it, but, of course, 10 I would not abandon the demands for the extension of the universal franchise to all Africans. That's how I see it, my lords. Then at the end of the five year period we will have discussions and if the Government says "We will give you again 40 more seats", I might say that that 15 is quite sufficient, let's accept it, and still demand that the franchise should be extended, but for the agreed period we should suspend civil disobedience, no stay 20 at homes. In that way we would eventually be able to get everything that we want; we shall have our Peoples Democracy, my lords. That is the view I hold - - whether that is Congressview I don't know, but that is my view. I want to put to you, Mr. Mandela, that in this lecture under the heading "Is it possible" the Congress Movement has indicated that it does not seek a victory 25 along those gradual lines, that it cannot be achieved over a long period of concessions, and that the reason for that view of Congress is revealed in the description of the State and how the State rules, which is contained in that paragraph? Well, I don't accept this as a 30 Congress view. These lectures express a view of the man who drafted them. It is possible that there may be people in Congress who share these views, but it does not express the policy of the African National Congress. 35

15 15896, N.R.IODELA 5 Certainly I don't agree that your interpretation is correct - - I understand the sentence referring to small concessions to refer to concessions in the sense in which I have described them. I don't accept the interpretation you put on it, that this is a rejection. 10 Very well, Heaving the first sentence aside for a moment. Coming back to this description of the State, You say that this is not Congress policy. Now I want to put to you the question again. In the course of your reading, or in the course of your copious note making have you come across a description of the State and the 15 way it rules through armed force - the way that Parliament is merely an instrument whereby a small minority gan exert their will over the masses? Does this description tally with any brand of political thought that you encountered? My lords, it may tally. 20 What do you think it tallies with? I don't say it does, my lords; it may tally with Socialism I suppose. It may. Or a Communist approach? It may, yes. I am merely concerned here with whether this is true; 25 I accepted my analysis of it as correct - call it Communist, call it Socialist - - I am not interested. I am concerned only with the truth - whether the statement is correct, and to me it is correct. To you it's undoubtedly correct, Mr.Mandela, 50 because it echoes and expands what you yourself have written in MRM.35. That was the document which was handedin by my learned friend yesterday. Just let me 35

16 N.R. MANDELA refresh your memory briefly on that score. You will 5 remember that this is the article written by you, the article entitled 'How South Africa is governed'. Remember this was one in a series of lectures which the Transvaal Provincial Executive of the A.N.C. commissioned leading members to write. This one was your contribution. 10 Now on page 1 of that article there is a paragraph headed "How Parliament works in practice" and it says 'Although Parliament is the supreme authority in the land in theory it is in practice merely the instrument by which the will of a few men is carried into effect'. 15 'Nearly all members of Parliament are members of one or other party, and they obey the orders of the Party's leaders, thus the leaders of the majority party are in complete control of Parliament. Their decisions are automatically approved and are often not freely discussed even by the members of 20 the Government party.' And then it goes on to say that the debate - - that the function of the ordinary member of Parliament isn't to decide the country's future, but merely to make propaganda for or against the decisions which the Government's leaders decide. And then, Mr. 25 Mandela, this is really the crux of the matter; on page 5 of this lecture there is the following paragraph in your article; it's headed "How the Laws are enforced" and it s ays t 'Once the laws are passed by Parliament they have to be enforced. A whole machinery exists to 50 enforce these laws; a whole army of civil servants, policemen, magistrates, native commissioners and soldiers. None of these people are ever elected by the voters, nor do they change with changes of government. 35

17 N.R.MANDELA Behind Parliament then stands this "body of men armed l raith force to see that the laws are carried out. None of these bodies is impartial; none of them act against the ruling class because they are hired to enforce the rule of the ruling class. For Africans there is a spe- cial body to enforce the laws, 5 the Native Affairs Department standing as a weapon of the ruling class to impose its will on the African people in the same way as the police force. All these bodies of men to enforce the law together with the Government, its Cabinet, its Ministers make up the machinery of oppression of the 10 people which we call the State". Now, Mr. Mandela, I an toow you are not/expert in these matters, but is it generally speaking, that you gained the impression from your political reading that the most striking feature - the Marxist-Leninist attitude towards the State in 15 Capitalist society is that the State is the machinery of oppression of the people? My lords, I'm not an expert on Marxism; I have read certain works, but I don't profess to be an expert. It may well be the 20 view, the striking feature of Marxism... I'm not asking you as an expert, Mr. Mandela; I appreciate that neither of us is, but the simple question is: Have you gained the impression that that is the classic feature of Marxism-Leninism, namely that it regards the State in a Capitalist society as 25 an instrument of oppression to be used against the oppressed people, an instrument that rules by force, sheer force? My lords, thatmay well be so, but my own reading of Marxism is very, very elementary in 30

18 N.R. MANDELA -deed. I don't know if that is the classic feature of Marxism. It may be so. I am not interested in that, but if you ask me on that lecture I am prepared to stand by every sentence that is uttered there; agrees with Marxism-Lenisim I don't know; whether it it may well agree. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in the fact that that article expresses what goes on in South Africa. You say it may or may not be. Can you remember, Mr. Mandela? My lords, I am not able to say. I say that that question can be answered by somebody who has read Marxist literature so widely that he is qualified to say 'This is the classic feature of Marxism'; I'm not in that position, my lords. Have you come across that idea in your readings or cannot you remember? I may have come across it; it's quite possible. Do you remember from your readings whether it is a feature at all? It may be a feature of Communist doctrine; it may be a feature. At any rate whether or not it occupies a position in Communist teaching, you accept unreservedly that that is the nature of the State in Capitalist society, and specifically in South Africa? I accept what I wrote there. Now, you accept what you wrote in NRM.35 and you accept also the description of the State and how it rules contained in "Change is needed"? Yes. The one we're dealing with? Yes, I accept that.

19 15900* NR. MANDELA If that description of the State is accurate, 1 Mr.Mandela, then, of course, it bears immediately on the problem of whether the change-over from the present State to a Peoples democracy is to be achieved by a process of reform, and the possibility of negotiation between the oppressor and the oppressed, does it not? Well, I think 5 there we are at'cross purposes, my lords, because I can find nothing in this passage--you. have.-referred to which, argues against negotiation, and against the illustration I have given you. I can frankly see nothing. I inter- pret small concessions in the light of the illustration 10 I have given. I wouldn't regard it as a small concession if the Government felt "We will allow 60 Africans to go to Parliament, elected by universal adult franchise". I wouldn't regard that as a small concession. think to that extent we are at cross purposes. And I 15 Well, that paragraph, disregarding again the first sentence of the one which asks whether a sweeping change can be made little by little, looking again at the description of the State, that description you agree 2C with me bears on the question 'Can Congress expect to get any substantial concessions from the ruling class'. Is my question clear? Yes. You see, this paragraph says 'Can sweeping changes be made little by little, by one reform after another, by long periods of small concessions'. Well, you've said that the Congress movement wouldn't want it that way; it wouldn't be interested in small concessions, and I can understand your point of view. Now, you've told the Court this morning that the Congress? 0

20 15901 N.R.MANDELA Movement would be interested in substantial concessions.. RUMPEF J: It might be. MR. HOSXTER: Might be, my lord, yes. Might be interested in substantial concessions if the ruling class was prepared to make them. Now the question to you is, does the description of the State contained in this paragraph - whether in the light of that description there seems to be any possibility of a substantial concession by the ruling class herein described? Well, certainly, my lords. The ruling class would not do so out of its own volition, of its own free will; there would have to be a tremendous amount of pressure exercised by the oppressed people in order to force the Government to give in to our demands. I see nothing inconsistent with this line of economic pressure, exert- Government and forcing the Government against its will to give in to our demands. I see nothing inconsistent here against negotiation, nothing ehatsoever. Now this description of the State and the way in which it rules is also important to the Congress move-» ment, assuming that your view is the correct one; if one can describe the State in this fashion, then this paragraph is important too in considering the question whether the Peoples Democracy will be achieved within the present constitutional set-up, simply by granting the universal franchise to all the people in this country above a certain age? Well, what I say is not Congress policy; the Congress might well have a different policy; this is my personal view. Mr.Mandela, pausing there, why do you say

21 15902, N.R.MANDELA that this is not Congress policy? You. see, the question of.precisely how the changes would be brought about has never been discussed by Congress.. Well, discussions alright, finish what you were saying? As far as I understand the position in the Freedom Charter Congress has set out the type of State it is striving to establish in South Africa. How that will be brought about, of course - the methods of political action set out in the Programme of Action will be used - - but the question whether, if the Government suggests "We will give you 50 members - Africans" - that, of course, has never been discussed. It's a Question that will be considered when that eventuality takes place. That has never been discussed, and therefore here I am expressing a personal point of view. Mr. Mandela, this paragraph contains a description of the State and how it rules by force. My question to you is: on the strength of what do you suggest that that description does not tally with the policy of the Congress movement? RUMPFF J; Is it correct to use in the circumstances the word 'policy'? MR. H0EXT3R: Well, the view, if policy is not a happy word; whether this view of the State, and how it rules, whether this view does not accord with the view of Congress - - and I want to know why you say that, Mr. Mandela? In fairness I don't think I said that this does not accord with the view of the Congress; I'm merely saying that these lectures do

22 N.R.MANDELA not set out the policy of the African National Congress; they are the views of somebody ^ho wrote them, but I can find nothing in the lectures which is inconsistent with the policy either of negotiation or the policy of getting our demands fully attained through the illustration I have given. Mr. Mandela, you are talking now about the things in which these lectures are consistent; then we have the general question. You have conceded that as far as the first two lectures are concerned there is nothing inconsistent with Congress policy, whatever that may be. Thethird lecture... RUMPFF J: Was the answer yes? Yes, my lord. MR. HOEXTER: The third lecture now.... (COURT ADJOURNED FOR 15 MINUTES) ON THE COURT RESUMING: MR. DE VPS: My lords, before Mr. Hoexter proceeds, there is one matter I would like to mention. Despite requests to the Defence, more than once by the Crown directed the name of the next witness has not yet been given tc the Crown. Your lordships may remember that on the 26th July Mr. Fischer, when he approached the Court for a further adjournment, made the statement that 'We are trying to prepare a group of three or four or five witnesses faho will all be ready to carry on from the first; we haven't determined precisely what order they will be in; we will be able to let the Crown know within a few days." That was in reply to your lordships' question to the

23 N.R. MANDELA effect "If you have in mindcalling another witness, have you notified the Crown of the name of that witness"? that was the reply to that question, my lords. My lords, at the moment I merely want to put it on record that the Crown has not yet been apprised of the next witness following on Mandela, and it certainly is a very unhelpful attitude the Defence is adopting in this particular RUMP IFF J: matter. Is it not possible for you to inform the Crown on this point? MR. KENTRIDGE: Well, it's not possible to inform the Crown on that to-day, my lords. RUMPFF J: Why not? MR. KENTRIDGE: it's not possible. For various reasons, my lorijl, I may say that we informed the Crown of the identiy of the witness Nkapene before he was called, Nkalepe; we informed the Crown of the identity of the witnee Mandela two or three days before he went into the box., where we can do it we do it; I've no doubt that before this witness is finished his cross examination we'll be in a position to do so, my lords. RUMPFF J: Isn't this a bit extraordinary? MR. KENTRIDGE: Extraordinary, my lord? RUMPFF J: Yes, most extraordinary. MR. KENTRIDGE: It may be, my lord; I don't know, I didn't realise it was extraordinary. RUMPFF J: You didn't realise? MR. KENTRIDGE: No, my lord. RUMPFF J: Are you keeping the name back on purpose?

24 N.R. MANDELA MR. KENTRIDGE: No, my lord; if we were keeping the name back on purpose, my lord, we no doubt would have reason for doing it. It's a strange question to come from your lordship. RUMPFF J; You say it's not extraordinary. MR. KENTRIDGE: With great respect, my lord, I don't know -why your lordship put that question to me. RUMPFF J: Well, in the conduct of a case like this, where witnesses may be long or short, the position arose in exactly the same manner when the Crown led its witnesses - the Defence, in order to prepare its cross examination, was perfectly entitled to say "Look, the Crown must tell us please in advance, because of the mass of evidence, which witness it intends to call, otherwise we'll have to listen to the evidence in chief, thereafter apply for a postponement of the cross examination"." We don't want that to happen if possible, so the Crown must know what witnesses it wants to call.. " MR. KENTRIDGE: My lord, I don : T; know that the crown has been in that position at all during the Defence case, RUMPFF J; I'm talking about the Crown's case. The Defence obviously, and quite rightly, expected the Crown to advise the Defence in advance the names or at least not all the names, but the one or two next after the one in the box, so as to enable the Defence to be able tc cross examine within a reasonably short time after the witness had given his evidence. Why is your position different? MR. KENTRIDGE: The Crown called a long succes-

25 N.R.MANDEL4 sion of witnesses, my lord, as far as I remember; many of them very short. Obviously for convenience they gov us that facility, which we appreciated, my lord. In our case, my lord, we have to consult with witnesses most of whom are accused persons; it hasn't in the normal way been possible for us to know more than a day or so in advance who our nest witness is going to be. When we've known we've told the Crown. I don't know of any case where the Crown hasn't known of the next witness, and when we do know then, my lords, we are in a position to tell the Crown. RUMPFF J: May I ask you again then, why are you not in a position to inform the Crown of your next witness? MR. KENTRIPGE: Because we don't know who the next witness will be, my lord. RUMPFF J: Doesn't Counsel know that when they deal with the Defence case? MR. KENTRIPGE: My lord, I'm afraid that it may be extraordinary, we may be failing in our job, but I'm afraid we haven't made up ourminds who the nextwitness will be... RUMPFF J: It's not failing in your job, it's a matter of co-operation. MR. KENTRIPGE: We're conscious of our shortcomings, my lord, but nonetheless it may sound extraordinary to your lordship, hut we have not yet made up our minds who the next witness will be. It may be that your lordships will underslmd that it may depend on the line of cross examination taken with this witness

26 N.R.MANDELA RUMPFF J: Yes, obviously it may be that the Defence thinks "Well, we want to call a certain witness but if the evidence goes along certain lines we may find it not necessary to call him" or "We want to call another witness first, before we call the one we had in mind." I don't want to create the impression that the Defence is in any way bound - it is merely a question of cooperation, indicating if not the first witness, well, the possibility of two or three, even if you don't call them or one of tham. It's to enable the Crown to prepare and I so not waste time. That is obviously.the reason... MR. KENTRIDGE; Well, my lords, we have understood that the object of telling the Crown who the witness will be, so that they can get their documentation ready, and so that the Counsel who is to cross examine that witness can be in Court and is not busy on other work - - similarly, in the case of the Crown, there were hundreds of potential witnesses; they told us from time to time who they were going to call, and the Counsel who was to examine could then be ready, but, my lords, here we are calling accused persons; they are all known. If we are in a position to tell them the day before who is going to be called, I cannot see that that would lead to any delay, RUMPFF J; ay lord. I'm afraid I still fail to see why the Crown cannot be informed of say two or three names. MR. KENTRIDGE: My lord, we can give thirty names. RUMPFF J: Yes, I know, Mr. Kentridge. Very well. XXD BY MR HOEXTER: Mr. Mandela, at the tea adjournment we were dealing with the third lecture, "Change is needed"

27 N.R.MANDELA We had been discussing this paragraph "Is it possible" and I want to come back to this question. This paragraph contains a description of the State in South Africa and how that State rules by force? That is so. Now, is that view of the State in accord with Congress view? Well, as far as I am aware the African National Congress has no view on the nature of the State in South Africa. It has never sat down to discuss what the nature of the State is in South Africa. Wasn't the Transvaal African National Congress apparently content with the description of the State contained in your lecture "How South Africa is governed"; that lecture was written a long time ago. Lid any complaint ever reach you about your description of the South African State in that lecture? No, no. What Congress has done from time to time is to say 'The Government has enforced apolicy of oppression on Africans, we condemn them; ws are going to abolish them", but to analyse what the structure of the State is has never to my recollection ever been discussed by the African National Congress. Individual members may have analysed the situation, but from the point of view of the African National Congress I do not remember a discussion on the nature of the State. Well, then let me refresh your memory by referring to the second lecture which you have already told their lordships ocntcins nothing inconsistent with Congress policy. I'm referring, my lords, to the "Country we livd in", paragraph 9, 'The system of oppression'. It's on page 653 of the record, Mr. Mandela.

28 N t R T MWm There the author of the lecture says under the heading "A system of oppression", 'This is the system Imperialits ism has built to protect/high profits at the expense of South Africa - - at the expense of the people of South Africa. Such a system, a system by which a small group of men grow rich at the cost of the misery, slavery and poverty of many, is always in danger of overthrow by the oppressed people, This is true of South Africa also." Now pausing there, are you aware that the Congress movement in other places suggested that the present State was in dangerof overthrow by the oppressed; that this theme is expressed elsewhere in Congress writings? Individual members may have expressed that view, but the point I'm making is that Congress as such has never sat down and said that "In our view, our official policy is that this is the system Imperialism has built to protect high profits at the expense of South Africa." BEKKER J: Mr. Mandela, I want to put this to you, it's something that worries me. We've heard this isn't Congress policy, that isn't Congress policy; now this lecture, or this series of lectures, went out with the knowledge, I assume - - correct me if I'm wrong - - of the Congress movement? My lord, there I'm not in a position to help your lordships very much, because I was banned at the time, Well, now let's assume that these lectures went out with the knowledge of the Congress movement, and a statementa ppears in it 'This is true of South Africa also' ; why should one not infer that that state-

29 N.R.MANDELA merit carried the "blessings of the Congress movement? It may well carry the blessings I'm asking why should it not; why should one not infer, if an organisation is prepared to allow a lecture to go out in which a statement of fact is made why shouldn't one infer that that particular statement of fact is approved of by the organisation? Well, my lords, Congress is an organisation for many schools of political thought, and Congress may well take up the attitude that although this is not our official policy there are schools of thought which think along these lines in Congress, we are not going to stop the distribution of this material because it's not official Congress policy; we want the matter to be debated fully by the members of Congress; by all schools of thought in Congress, and let them make a decision for themselves. I can very well imagine Congress taking up that attitude, my lords. Yes; well, now, on the same lines, will you turn to page 665, it's under paragraph marked "How is it possible"? I've got it, my lord. Now, line 17 says "Only by gathering all the oppressed and liberty loving people together into a single mighty car^p which will work to win, not only the small concessions and reforms but whiuh will work also to overthrow the very basis of Imperialist oppression". Now that's a statement that's made? That is so, my lord. Now I want to draw your attention to this. "This is the task for which the Congress movement exists

30 N.R.MANDELA Now can't one infer, or shouldn't one infer, that this statement, this is the task for which the Congress movement exists, carridd the blessings of Congress, and that that is the task? Not necessarily, my lord, with respect. Why not? Because, my lord, there might be a school of thought in Congress which says that the task of the Movement should be this; the Congress may have come to no conclusion on this matter, but the Congress may well.... If Congress hadn't come to a conclusion,should Congress allow a statement like that to go to whoever it's got to reach? No, but what is Congress, my lord? Congress is the masses of the people who are members expressing themselves in the properly constituted bodies of that organisation. The Congress, if a statement of this nature, is placed before it, will say, "Let's place it before the membership,let them discuss it and make a decision themselves, and until they have discussed it and made a decision at the proper Conference, this is not the official policy of Congress. But what is this then in relation to Congress if it's not policy? It's a point of view expressed, either by a member of Congress, or by a supporter of Congress, for discussion, my lords, in order that the question should be decided, whether this should be the official policy of Congress. My lord I'm afraid I'm not satisfied. Tell me how I must deal with this position. Congress knows, let's assume, that these lectures go out? Yes.

31 N.R.MANDELA When I say Congress I don't mean the Conference, I mean the officials responsible for the working of Congress? Yes. In that sense Congress knows these lectures go out? Yes. Congress knows a statement appears in a lecture for example, "This is the task for which the.congress Movement exists"? Yes. How should one deal with that statement? Should one say, "Well, Congress knows that this statement is made and approves of it", or should one say "Congress simply doesn f t know and this isn't a task for which Congress exists? No, my lord. How must one deal with that? Let me explain, my lord, how a political organisation like Congress functions. The Executive, the National Executive of the African National Congress has no right to initiate, in Congress. The only body in Congress that is given the right, in terms of the constitution, to lay down policy is the National Conference. I'm alive to that, Mr. Mandela...? I want to explain how something becomes official policy of Congress. Yes? Once the National Conference has taken a decision on a matter then, of course, the National Executive and all the other bodies of Congress can act upon it, but until it is decided by the National Conference you cannot say 'This is the official view of the African National Congress 1. If I wanted to introduce a resolution that the African National Congress should follow a programme whereby it seeks to gather all

32 N.R?MANEELA the oppressed and liberty loving people together, into a single mighty camp which will work to win, not only the small concessions, but which will work also to overthrow the very basis of the Imperialist oppression, I must move a resolution in my branch; it's adopted, I take it to the Provincial Conference. The Provincial Conference may accept it, it may reject it. If it is rejected, although it has been submitted and discussed throughout the Province, that does not become - - it does not even goto the National Conference. If it goes to the National Conference and is accepted, then you can say 'This is the official view of the organisation'. If it is rejected by the National Conference, although it has been widely discussed in the Movement, you cannot in terms of our constitution say 'This is the official view of Congress'. Well, do you suggest that because Conference never formally passed a resolution that this is the task for which the Congress movement exists, that is not the policy of Congress 9 My lord, it may well be that leading members of the National Executive - like the National President - may express this view, and may have expressed that view, and people, ordinary people take it for granted tha'g what the National President of the organisation says is policy, he does endeavour to explain the policy of the organisation - - in some cases he may succeed in doing so, in other cases he may not succeed in doing so - - but always the deciding factor is what is the attitude of the National Conference? Well, your argument is tnat nothing is really policy or can be said to be policy of the African National

33 N.R.MANDELA African Congress unless it has been decided upon at the National Conference? My lord, our constitution specifically says that the National Conference. I say, that's your argument? Well, I. don't know if it is merely argument, my lord, it? s fact. The constitution says so. But, my lords, I make the concession that a person listening to a leading official of the organisation is entitled to assume that this is policy, and therefore if the National President makes a statement of this nature, people listening to him would be entitled to assume that this is policy, but I could still say, my lord, that as a matter of fact the African National Congress formally never adopted this view as policy. MR. HOEXTER; Apart from formal resolutions, Mr. Mandela, the Congress movement as a whole was profoundly anti-imperialist, is that not so? That is quite true. Now, reading the next paragraph of "A system of oppression 1 - this is at line 28 of page 653, my lords - I read now the next bit I ''Imperialism can only survive bj the use of force on the one hand and on the other by dividing the oppressed people and turning their anger and discontent away from their real oppressors and against their fellow oppressed. Thisis how Imperialism survives in South Africa." Now, Mr. Mandela, and Congress view, it's consistent with Congress policy that Imperialism survives only by force in South Africa? Yes, that is so. And what is the Congress policy as to how Imperialism is to be overthrown in South Africa?

34 N.R.MANDELA Congress has again never sat down to discuss just how Imperialism is going to be overthrown in South Africa except insofar to the extent that we have set out in our Programme of Action, which we will apply to bring about the changes set out in the Freedom Charter. RUMPFF J: Mr. Hoexter, I think the witness has indicated that his view is that the word policy indicates a required famal act - in one or two ways, as he has indicated, and it might be better then if indeed the question is based not on a formal act, of the kind the witness has indicated, to put it as a point of view. MR. HOEXTER: Yes, I shall do so, my lord. Is this, as far as it goes, consistent - - the paragraph I've read to you, you say is consistent with the point of view of Congress? As far as it goes, yes. Now in the same lecture, will you turn to page 655, line 27, there's a paragraph 'They rule by force'; have you got it? Yes. "From these hard allies, and from the most denationalised and most declassed sections of the oppressed Imperialism has built up a vast network of force, police, commissioners, superintendents and armies and workers to suppress by force the national struggle and revolts of the oppressed"? Yes. is that consistent with the view held by the Congress movement? But for the fact that I know what is the specific meaning of the phrase don't "The most denationalised and declassed sections of the oppressed"; but the point that Imperialism rules by force - that is consistent with the view of the Congress.

35 N.R. MANDELA Then would you turn to the paragraph in the same lecture headed 'Rule by decree'; this is on page 657, line 13 of the record? Yes. It says: 'But even that is not the whole story. Gradually, over the course of years, especially the last six years of the Nationalist Government, Parliament has passed more and more laws which give power to single people, usually Cabinet Ministers, to make regulations with the force of law ; without referring these regulations to Parliament. 1 And "then it considers the Native Administration Act, the Urban Areas Act, the powers of the Governor-General, and then towards the foot of that paragraph itsays: line 2 on page 658 it says: 'Even the limited European only Parliamentary system of democracy is dying out in Soutn Africa, as the Nationalist Government with the assistance and support of the representatives of non-afrikaner Imperialism,, tried to beat back the demands of the oppressed people and to stifle their revolts by a brutal dictatorship"? Yes, NoWj -jha'g paragraph, is that consistent with the view held by the Congress movement? That is so. Turning then to the next lecture - - the same lecture rather, paragraph 14- 'A passing phase 1 - this is on page 653, line 23, it says: "Imperialism as we have seen is only one stage in the long development of mankind and mens' lives, society and Institutions. Before it thero have come and gone different systems, slavery, feudalism, merchant capitalism, and Imperialism itself is only a stage, a passing phase which itself changes and develops. In its beginnings when it is

36 N.R.MANDELA powerful and unchallenged it manages to put on a show of democratic freedom, but as the discontent and revolt of the oppressed arises it is forced to strip off democratic pretences and to reveal itself in all its nakedness as a rule of despotic power based on force and racialism." Is that paragraph - sofar as you know - consistent with the point of view of the Congress Movement? My lords, I think this particular paragraph I cannot even say is a viewpoint held by the Congress. I don't remember the African National Congress having a discussion on these lines. Well, the question is - - let me reframe the question; are you able to say that it is inconsistent - -? No, I wouldn't say so. Now I'll read the next paragraph, paragraph 15 which says: 'We are entering the last stage in the history of Imperialism, the stage when democratic pretence gives way to open terrorist dictatorship - we call Fascism. Fascism, the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary,yacialistic and blood thirsty section of the Imperialist ruling class. This is the system rapidly growing up in South Africa under the Nationalist Government," Now pausing there, so far as you are aware, is that fully consistent with the viewpoint held by the Congress movement?-- I don't think it is inconsistent. I don't know if they analysed it in this way, but the view is held by Congress that Fascism is growing and is becoming more brutal in the country. And that it is bloodthirsty? Yes, oh yes. That it is racialistic and bloodthirsty.

37 N.'rL MANDELA That is your own view, is it not? That is my own view, definitely; most definitely. Then it proceeds to say: 'To challenge it there is need for a close unity of all the oppressed people together with all the democrats and liberty loving sections of the European people whose future is threatened by Fascism 1. Then it says: 'Such an alliance cannot hope to defeat Fascism only by seeking to change the Government of the day'. Now pausing there, Mr.Mandela, it's obviously correct, is it not, that the Congress Movement seeks not merely to change the Government of the day? Well, can you complete that please? You say it seeks not merely to change the Government of the day Well, let me finish the quotation: 'For Fascism is not a particular body of men, it is something that grows out of the economic and social conditions produced by Imperialism, and can only be defeated by such sweeping radical changes in those conditions as will destroy for ever the breeding ground of Fascism. Let us study what those changes should be if the alliance is to destroy Fascism before Fascism destroys the people.' Now, it's clear here, is it not, that Congress did not desire simply a State with universal franchise for all its citizens, it required much more? Well, let me put it this way. If the meaning of this article is that it is not merely to change the Government but that you must set out to destroy Capitalism, then this goes farbeyond the policy of the African National Congress. The Congress regards it as extremely important that

38 r N.R. MANDELA there should be unity among all sections of the population, in struggling against racial discrimination. That we know? But it does not seek to go beyond that. Mr. Mandela, isn't it abundantly clear that the Congress Movement above all wants to destroy the root of the evil, the social evil, which is the Capitalist system? Isn't that clear above all, from hundreds of documents that have been handed in in this case? My lords, the derands of the Congress Movement are set out in the Freedom Charter, and the realisation of those 10 demands, as radical and sweeping as they are, will not in any way accept the monopolies mentioned in the Freedom Charter, which will be nationalised; apart ffom that Capitalism will remain in this country as it is, and the Congress does not seek to eliminate that. The aggrarian reform, Mr. Mandela, isn't that a somewhat striking feature? The division of the land? Yes, the re-division of the land? The redivision of the land, individual ownership? Yes? There will be no public ownership of the land, by the State; at least as far as the Freedom Charter is concerned. Very well then, let's now look at the first 2n paragraph of the next lecture - perhaps this point will become clearer. This is the lecture "Change is Needed", and this is paragraph 1 which says at page 660, line 8: 'All political groups everywhere have programmes of the changes they want to make in the life, custom 30

39 r " N.H.MANDBLA and laws of their country, so too in South Africa, but none of the parliamentary political parties seek to make the type of changes that the national liberation movements needs.' Then it says: 'The parliamentary parties despite all their differences about the type of changes to be made, are agreed on one thing, those changes must not upset the basic structure of cheap labour and high profits; they are agreed on the need to uphold private exploitation of the riches of South Africa, its resources and its people, and therefore 10 they are agreed not to upset the system of race discrimination and oppression on which this exploitation rests. The arguments then are arguments only on how best to keep that basic structure in a changing world. They have their differences of opinion on these matters but it is clear that the Congress movement cannot be 15 satisfied with the type of changes the parliamentary parties seek to bring about. The Congress movement which works to end all racial oppression and all discrimination amongst nations must seek the kind of changes in our way of life which will undermine and 20 root out the system these parties exist to uphold.' Now, Mr. Mandela, would you agree with me that in 1955, looking at the political scene in South Africa, if one were to take a party like the Liberal Party, and study its programme, it was clear already in and it is clearer to-day - - that the Liberal Party had set itself the task of eliminating race discrimination cocpletely in this country? Yes 0 But tell me first, this paragraph, this first 30

40 N.R. MANDELA paragraph, to the best of your knowledge, is it consist- 5 ent with Congress policy - is it consistent with the viewpoint of the Congress movement, as it is known to you? No, I think it goes much further than the programme of the Congress, because having read it as you read it, it gives me the same impression, that unless the Capitalist 1 system is destroyed we cannot expect to eliminate... That is the essential idea, is it not? And I think it goes much further than the policy of the African National Congress. You think that it goes much further than what 15 you concede to be the viewpoint of the Congress movement? I think so, yes. And as a person who was once a senior member of the African National Congress, what do you have to say about the desirability of putting forth literature - this 20 viewpoint, in a document which evidence in this case suggests was very widely dessiminated? What are your feelings on that score? Well, I have no objection to members of the Congress discussing ideas; they are perfectly en- titled to do so, they are perfectly entitled to canvass 25 and advocate any point of view which they desire and which they think should be adopted by the African National Congress, and we have distributed a large number of lectures, canvassing points of view, and we permit views of this nature to be generally canvassed in the Congress 30 Movement. Manddla, as far as you know, is this paragraph - the dogmatic statement contained in this paragraph, in anyway inconsistent with the policy of the S.A. African 35

41 Collection: 1956 Treason Trial Collection number: AD1812 PUBLISHER: Publisher:- Location: Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg LEGAL NOTICES: Copyright Notice: All materials on the Historical Papers website are protected by South African copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Disclaimer and Terms of Use: Provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein, you may download material (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal and/or educational non-commercial use only. People using these records relating to the archives of Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, are reminded that such records sometimes contain material which is uncorroborated, inaccurate, distorted or untrue. While these digital records are true facsimiles of paper documents and the information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand has not independently verified their content. Consequently, the University is not responsible for any errors or omissions and excludes any and all liability for any errors in or omissions from the information on the website or any related information on third party websites accessible from this website.