(A.J. LUTHULI)

Transcription

1 Lord, according to the reports, that is before the Court, our own view does indicate that they had difficulty - the local people in Johannesburg had great difficulty... Mr. Luthuli, in answering th6 question you said that the procedure would "be like this and how in 5 terms of this report there was difficulty. Can't you remember yourself what happened? I really don't want to know what the general procedure would be or what the report says, I am asking you from your memory, whether after the decision by the National Executive to have 10 industrial action, whether the directive did in fact go out? That I wouldn't know, My Lord, definitely that I wouldn't know. Now, secondly, did you look at reports coming in from the provinces or were reports put before 15 the National Executive from the provinces in regard to the situation? My Lord, my difficulty there would be to recall whether between the time the directive was given in the middle of the year and the removal (1), how many Executive Meetings took place and how many I 20 attended, because I couldn't attend all of them. So that I wouldn't specifically recall, My Lords, honestly I wouldn't. Was there a meeting of the National Executive when the dateof the removal became known? My Lord, 25 insofar as I am concerned, I would say that I don't recall a meeting of the Executive being called. What would have been the case normally in such an event, having been preparing for a certain even, the date has now been announced. Would in the 30 normal course of business the National Executive, have a meeting? No, My Lords, the National Executive would r T*i'in'ti*!ijitoffiiiflfijittfa*' &..

2 have a meeting if the Working Committee for an example felt that there were certain difficulties which warranted the calling of an Executive meeting to consider the certain difficulties. In the normal course of things, having decided on the campaign, when things are ready 5 the National Working Committee would ten say well, the plans are so on. That would be the normal thing. When the date "became known, - I am not talking about the anticipated date, but the original date - when that became known, had the National Executive 10 already decided not to proceed with industrial action? Or was it only after the date became known that it was decided not to proceed with industrial action? My Lords, as I personally feel, the National Executive never met, so that the decision would have been made by 1 15 the Working Committee whether to proceed or not to proceed. New j don't know... Could the Working Committee decide that there should be no industrial action on a nationwide scale? ffiy Lords, they could. The decision having 20 been made, they are the administrative group. If they found for an example that things as such that it couldn't be done, the Working Committee could say no, we feel we can't carry on. My Lord, may I just add this, it might help to indicate the difficulties. I recall specifically 25 that because of my own concerned, although I was banned and not active and so on, I remember sending to headquarters, tryii g to get more information as to what the position was, and almost up to the last minute, I remember the last visit that I had, an Exe6utive came 30 to me, was to the effect that information would be forthcoming, but they too were not ready. That I recall

3 specifically. BY MR. TRjMG-OVE : Mr. Luthuli, the Working Committee at that stage would have included members like Tambo, Mathole, Vundhla, Resha and so on, would it note 5 That is so, My Lord. And I want to put it to you Mr. Luthuli, that there is no reason why the Working Committee should not at all times have been aware of exactly how the campaign was being conducted in the Western Areas? My 10 Lord, I cannot help the Court there, I have already said that I., cannot tell the difficulties of the Working Committee, but it is a fact that it was difficult to get information. As I have indicated, I was v^ry much concerned too. But what the difficulties were I am afraid I cannot say. 15 Where do you get this statement that the Working Committee found it difficult to get information? My Lords, I think that if I - if my memory saves me well, our review does indicate that there were difficulties. And because of those difficulties and possibly 20 because of information, - paucity of information, it was difficult. I think that is in our report. But apart from the report, My Lord, it is correct, as I have just remembered now to say to the Court that I did try to get information, I couldn't get information until 25 the last minute when I was told, we don't have information here to supply you Mr. President, we may later. That is correct. Beyond that I can't explain. What is the information that you wanted? My Lords, I wanted to know the state of preparedness 30 of the people in the Western Areas, because it would be important to know that in order to know whether to in

4 FACT CARRY on industrial action or not. Because afterall, the main centre was the Western Areas, andit would be most important to know the state of affairs there, the attitude of the population there and so on, My lord. You wanted tonknow to what extent the people $ were prepared to resist? That would be correct, My Lord. what the temper of the people was? Quite correct, what the feeling of the people was and to what extent they were prepared to resist. 10 And depending on that you would decide whether you would have industrial action throughout the Union or not? In my view that would be a factor, My Lord. BY MR. JU^TICS KENNEDY s 15 Mr. Luthuli, may I intervene. Am I correct in the impression which you gave me that there was to be a co-ordination of a Union wide strike with the day of removal? That is correct, My Lord. And I think you also said that in view of 20 the date of removal being anticipated, you couldn't proceed with the industrial action because you weren't read? That is also correct, My Lord. Now can you help us by giving us information as to whether within your knowledge plans were already 25 set afoot for a Union wide strike on the day of removal? I ask because that seemed to be your campaign for a coordinated strike with the removal? My Lord, I wouldn't help the Court My Lords because as I have already said My Lord with respect, on the question of the Western 30 Areas, the Court must take into account the reports from the provinces. Having issued the directive, it

5 would be so. The extent to which they carried out their plans My Lord quite frankly I wouldn't know. And therefore there really was no co-ordination. BY MR. TRENGOVL : Mr. Luthuli, if the people were sufficient- 5 ly prepared in the Western Areas, if their state of preparedness was at a sufficiently high level, the plan for industrial action was intended to be put into operation? That would be so. Do you mean when you say the state of 10 preparedness of the people, do you mean their determination to resist removal? That is correct, My Lord. Now when was the plan to put industrial action into operation, when was that abandoned? My Lords I do not recall any formal abandoning of the plan. 15 A decision taken now to say we are formally abandoning the plan, I don't recall that. And in the nature of things I don't think there was such a formal abandonment. BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF : Was the industrial action notput into 20 operation because the government anticipated the date? That would be a factor, My Lord. What I am trying to say to the learned prosecutor is this that I don't know whether the Working Committee met and said now we are taking a formal decision we are not going to carry 25 out. Had the government not anticipated the date, would the industrial action have been put into operation? My Lord, it would depend largely on the preparedness of the provinces. If for an example the 30 reports came to us that the provinces were not ready and you felt they were not ready, from that point of view

6 we wouldn't be able to do anything at all. BY MR. TRiCNGOVL : Mr. Luthuli, according to the report of the Secretariat, at page 3, the report states "In this situation which obtained just prior to the removals, 5 it was agreed by the Secretariat that efforts should be directed to inducing and assisting as many of the proposed evacuees to remove further into Sophiatown and to attempt to ensure that no families would go to Meadowlands. Before adequate and effective steps could be taken to 10 implement this, the government acted, throwing the arrangements into confusion." Now that I take it would be the anticipation of the date by three days? That is correct, My Lords. "Nevertheless the Volunteers went into 15 action, and despite the shortness of notice, adverse weather conditions etc. they succeeded in evacuating some thirty families." That is correct, My Lord. "Plans had been made for I.A. and for nationwide support in various forms. In the face of the 20 situation which obtained and the unpreparedness of the people, which became apparent at this stage, these had to b^ abandoned at the last minute". So that this report states quite clearly Mr. Luthuli, "that the plans for the industrial action had been made and that 25 those plans had to be abandoned at the last minute". My Lords, I don't know whether that reading implies My Lord that the provinces for an example were ready and the extent to vhich they were reading is indicated there. I don't know whether you would read that into 30 that, but as I said, My Lords, it isn't just the factor of Sophiatown, but the preparedness throughout that comes

7 in, My Lord. Mr. Luthuli, if language means anything, and you can look at the bottom of page 3, "plans for industrial action had been made and plans for industrial action were abandoned at the last minute"? My Lords, 5 even before I read, I might be having difficulty myself with language. Plans for industrial action had been decided on, provinces were expected to work on those plans. So from that point of view there were plans. But I don't understand what the difficulty of the Crown 10 is there. Now then... It is not the Crown's difficulty, Mr. Luthuli, we have no difficulty at all? It seems to be you have. Plans were abandoned at the last minute? 15 But surely the Working Committee finding the situation being what it is, would then decide and quite rightly, not to call upon the provinces, even if they were ready. What I am trying to say is this, that I don't think that implies that the provinces were therefore in fact ready. 20 But it decided that it wouldn't even call upon the provinces. Mr. Luthuli, how long does it take to organise nation wide industrial action in order to be effective? My Lord, it differs in different areas. 25 According to the Organisational state of any one area. Take the Transvaal. On a nation wide basis industrial action has to be organised. How long does that take? Before the whole nation is organised for industrial action? My Lord, that would take 30 quite some time. As I say, some areas might take a shorter period to get prepared and others would take long,

8 and even when you launch a campaign of that nature, you might find that some areas are not ready, they might come in later. What is the minimum time according to your experience? I can't - I can't. That - I don't 5 think that it is even possible to do it. You can't do it within three days, can you? You couldn't do it within three days, of course. Now I want to put it to you that you know very well that the African National Ccngress had a 10 worked out plan for nation wide industrial action and that they abandoned that plan at the last minute as this report says? My Lord, with really due respect, a plan other than what I have already indicated - I will say to the Court there could have been no plan other 15 than what I have already said in Court. Mr. Luthuli, you haven't indicated any plan at all. You have merely indicated a decision to take industrial action? I might be able to help the Crown, if I can, if it tells me what it means by plan? 20 The Crown didn't plan to take industrial action? I am trying to explain, so that maybe your understanding of plan and mine are different. Mr. Luthuli, was this going to be a stay at home, a stay away from work? Should be that. 25 Was it going to apply to industrial workers? Naturally it would if it is industrial action. Was it going to ajply to anybody else? People working in offices, people doing any other work outside industries? My Lord, it would involve as many of the people who could participate in it.

9 (a.j. LUTHULI) What was it intended to involve? What was the decision? Who was it going to effect? My Lord, it would effect industry, it would effect commerce. Would it effect the mines? It would effect the mines, surely, that is... 5 The intention was to effect everybody, every African employed throughout the country. Was that the intention? If the state of organisation could reach those Africans, yes. But that was the plan? That would be 10 the purpose. For how long was this industrial action going to last? Was that decided? No, My Lords, that detail wasn't decided. Was it decided how the people were going 15 to be organised for this industrial action? As it going to be by way of pamphlets of whatever it may be? Was that decided? Or was it going to be on the Mandela plan, a house to house canvas in cells? Was that decided? My Lords, we have a standing way of doing things, 20 extending information to people. Now it would consist ^ of making use of leaflets, making use of house to house canvas, it is true. X BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF : Was this a secret plan? No, it wasn't 25 ^ My Lord. BY MR. TRENGOVL : Can you say how far that plan had been worked out at the time when it was abandoned? No, I wouldn't be able to say, My Lord. 30 You don't know? I don't know. Did you ever enquire? I never enquired.

10 lid you get any report from any of the provinces as to how far it had been organised? My Lords, I do not recall reading a report, but I can recall talking to one of the leaders for an example in the Cape saying that their state of preparedness was not such 5 that they could participate at all. That I recall. So you spoke to one leader? wasn't a formal report, just in conversation. I mean it I don't recall a formal report on the state of preparedness of the provinces. I am just trying to indicate what I 10 recall. Now do you say Mr. Luthuli that in view of the anticipated date of removal you were not able to put into operation your plan for industrial action? That is one factor, My Lord* 15 And that had it been on the 12th of February you would have gone ahead with that plan? My Lords, one cannot say here catagoriaally we would have, because it would depend on the preparedness of the area. BY MR. JUSTICE BiSKKER s 20 Was it the intention? Yes, My Lord, it was the intention. To put the plan into operation on the 12th? Subject to the state of preparedness, subject to conditions, was it the intention of the African National 25 Congress to put industrial action into operation? That is correct, My Lord. BY MR. TRjjNGOVE s Now Mr. Luthuli, who was going to decide ultimately whether the state of preparedness of the 30 people justified industrial action or not? In the normal course of things the Working Committee would.

11 They would decide for the whole Union? In the normal course of things, having received reports, they would. A nd how long before the actual date of removal would that decision have to be taken in order to inform the provinces and the branches and so on that they have now decided, the people are sufficiently prepared to go ahead with Industrial Action? Well, My Lords, I would just normally say you would require at least about a fortnight or so in order to be able to - weeek to a fortnight in order to be able to inform the areas, My Lord. So that Mr. Luthuli, on the 8th of February when it became known that the government was going to move the people the next day, at that date the African National Congress had either decided to abandon industrial action or to go on with it? My Lords, I would say that with the state of things as they were, it would have been very difficult to put the plans into operation, except, My Lords... That is not what I am asking. The decision to abandon industrial action on the day of removal, that decision must have been taken by the Working Committee sometime prior to the anticipated date becoming known? As I have said I don't know whether they took a formal decision, that I don't know, I have already said s Mr. Luthuli, the provinces had to report on the state of preparedness of the people to take industrial action? That is correct, My Lord. The Working Committee had to take the final decision whether to go ahead or not, in view of those reports? Yes, one would expect that, that would

12 be so. And that decision would be taken sometime after the date of removal first became known, and sometime prior to the 8th February? That would be correct, My Lord. 5 When was that decision taken? I don't know. Did you ever enquire? I never enquired. Why not? I didn't seem to me so pressing except if there was a review - plans didn't go on and I 10 didn't seem pressed to ask for details, unless we are sitting down at an Executive meeting. Well, subsequently you did? Subsequently the National Executive did meet and they did review the Western Areas Campaign? Yes. 15 Did you then enquire when that decision was taken and why? My Lords, I don't recall. Is it correct to say that it was the African National Congress that really compelled the government to embark on a fullscale military operation in order to 20 remove the hundred and fifty families on the 9th of February? I beg your pardon? Is it correct to say that the African National Congress, through the conduct of its campaign compelled the government to make use of two to thrje 25 thousand armed policemen to remove the people? My Lords, my own feeling is that that would be a factor that would influence the government. But Mr. Luthuli, did the African National Congress claim that by its actions it forced the govern- 30 ment to use two thousand armed policemen to effect the removals? I think, My Lord, we did make that claim.

13 And that to that extent the campaign was a success? That is correct. Why did the African National Congress want to compel the government to use two thousand armed policemen to effect the removal of a hundred and fifty 5 families? My Lords, the African National Congress was not primarily concerned with getting the government to make use of a large force. It was however very much concerned with carrying out its campaign to a point when the government would reconsider. Now the African NationallO Congress realised that of course if the government found that it could not reconsider, it would in the normal course of things use force. Mr. Luthuli, you know very well that the African National Congress was doing its best to get the 15 government to - to compel the government to resort to force and intimidation to remove the people. That is what you wanted? Oh no, far from it. Definitely far from it. I cannot add anymore to what I have said. We, naturally, as $ have said, expect the government to 20 reconsider, and we. realise realistically that if the government should decide to carry on its plans, it would in the normal coursc of things use force. But that was not the primary object, My Lords. We don't sat out to say let us force the government to use force. 25 Let me just refer you to one or two documents. COURT ADJOURNS.

14 ALBERT JOHN LUTHULI, under former oath; CRQ3S-EXMMINATI0N BY MR. TRENGOVE CONTINUED? Mr. Luthuli, I was about to refer you to a document alleged to have been found in the possession of 0. R. Tambo, the document is O.R.T. 129? My Lord, I 5 just wonder whether this would be relevant to the previous cross-examination. What I want to say now... BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF : Just make a note of that? I have made a note. 10 BY MR. TRENGOVE : This document deals with the Western Areas Campaign and in paragraph 3 the document states that the African National Congress didn't expect to defeat the government on a single local issue - this is a typed 15 document, typed in duplicate - now will you look at paragraph 3 Mr. Luthuli, Now after thebfirst sentence, the first two sentences, the document states ; "The objective of the campaign against removal was to foster a mental attitude of non borroborbation' with the government, 20 and to compel it to secure the removal of the people by intimidation and the employment of force. This objective was achieved by the Congress. The mobilisation of two thousand policemen by the government was the most emphasised recognition by them of the united opposition of 25 the people to the removal scheme." Now Mr. Luthuli, it is correct that the objective of the campaign was to foster a mental attitude of non-collaboration - it says non-corroboiration - an attitude of non-collaboration with the government. That is correct, is it not? My 30 Lord, first may I be guided by the Court to the extent that I reply to this document. I don't know its nature,

15 its author or anything like that. Should I... 3Y MR. JUSTIGS RUMPFF i You heedn't concern yourself with that at the moment. BY MR. TRENGOVE s 5 It is correct, Mr. Luthuli, is it not that the objective of the campaign was to foster a mental attitude of non-collaboration with the government? That would be correct. And I put it to you that it was also the 10 object of the A.N.C. to compel the government to secure the removal of the people by intimidation and force? BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF ; Mr. Trengove, shouldn't we warn the witness that he need not reply to this question, because it may 15 incriminate him? The answer may incriminate him? That is Emergency Regulations apart, Mr. Trengove, just in general? BY MR. TRENGOVE ; I am just wonderirg now, My Lords, Your 20 Lordship means as an alleged co-conspirator? BY MR. JUSTICE BEKKER s As a witness. He is being asked a question, m which if answered to, may incriminate him. I think the Code provides a witness shall not be asked, and if 25 asked need not answer any question, the reply which may incriminate him? BY MR. T:":ENG0VL : Yes, generally speaking, My Lords, that would be correct. 30 BY MR. JUSTICE BEKKER s Have you considered whether this question

16 should be as Iced? BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF : Mr. Luthuli, I wonder if you could just wait outside for a few minutes? We just want to discuss this. (WITNESS LEAVES COURT). BY MR. TRENGOVE : The relevant section would "be Section 234. BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF : It is a wellknown section there is no difficulty about the section, the difficulty is about the possible answer. You want to deal with the A.N.C.'s objects in regard to t e Western Areas Removal, that the object was to compel the government to use force. BY MR. TRENGOVE : My Lords, the question as far as this witness is concerned would effect his position if I put a further question, and - to the effect whether he knew that this was the object of the African National Congress and whether he supported that part of the policy. BY MR. JUSTICE BEKKER ; That was your previous question because you said "You know, Mr. Luthuli, the A.N.C. was doing its best to get the government - to compel the government to resort to force and violence". So you have put it to him that he knew that was the object. BY MR. JRENGOVE ; My Lords, his answer to that was that he didn't know. Now I am putting... BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF 2 know. His answer was no, not that he didn't

17 (ii. J. LUTHULI) BY MR. JUSTICE KENNEDY : His answer was that he denied that the A.N.C. wanted to do that. BY MR. TRENGOVE : What I want to put to him now, My Lords, is whether he knew of the policyor not, I want to put it to him that it was the object of the A.N.C. to compel the government to use force to remove the people in the Western Areas. BY MR. JUST13 BEKKER s If he says yes, aad - may he as leader not be incriminated? BY MR. TRENGOVE ; If he knew of this policy* My Lord. BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF : Yes, and his knowledge may then be inferred. Well, I think you had better consider this particular question* and go on with something else. BY MR. TRENGOVE s My Lords, I think if Your Lordship gives the witness a warning,... BY MR. JUSTICE BEKKER ; No, the Code says he shall not be asked, and if he is asked he need not answer. BY MR. TRENGOVE s My Lords, it is only the question of compellability, My Lords, it is not a question of an improper question. The Section says s "No witness in any criminal proceedings shall except as provided by this act or any other law, be compelled to answer any question which if he were under examination in similar case uepending on the Supreme Court judicature in England,

18 he would not be compelled to answer, by reason that his answer might have atendency to expose him to any pains, penalty, punishment, forfeiture or to a criminal charge." So it rests entirely My Lords, with the witness whether he wants to answer this question or not. My Lords, 5 if Your Lordship prefers this question to stand over at this stage, it wouldn't inconvenience the Grown in any way, My lords. BY MR. JUSTICE HQMPFF ; V>ell, you might think about it in the mean- 10 time. (WITNESS IS R.jC.ALLJD TO COURT). CR0SS-Z /J-:H\ : ATI0N BY MR. TRENGCVE CONTINUED : Mr. Luthuli, on the day of removal, the first removal, a hundred and fifty families would have 15 been effected, is th t correct? Approximately? I think so, I don't know specifically, My Lord. Was it the intention of the..frican National Congress that on that day the oth r people in the Western..re is sh uld ilso t part in demonstrations 20 against this removal? My Lords, I wouldn't know the details of the plans to that fine point, whether at this time of the removal we were aware that only 150 families would be involved, but My Lords, in the normal course of things on cur plans, tney would have made a demonstra- 25 tion. The other people too? The balance of the people? That is correct. That - the balance of the people, My Lord. ^nd what form would that demonstration 30 take? Of course, My Lord, as I hav; already said that if things had worked to plan, it would have taken - m

19 the form of participating in the "broad plan of industrial action. I don't know of anything that they would do other than that, My Lord. Mr. Luthuli, you have said in Friday or Thursday afternoon that the camapaigns and the resistance 5 of the people was to "be built up inter alia by holding a series of public meetings in that area and telling people to resist removal? That is correct, My Lord. And these meetings would take place over a period of months up to the date of the actual removal, 10 is that correct? That iscorrect, My Lord. And then you said,..? Of course depending upm the planning of the local people. Now you know as a fact, Mr. Luthuli, that from about the middle of June meetings were regularly 15 held in Sophiatown inciting the people not to remove willingly? Well, in general My Lord I know that meetings were held regularly, as they often are held regularly insophiatown. Not inciting, but getting people to understand the view of Congress, namely that they must 2 not willingly move. I wouldn't use the word inciting. Well, if you don't like that word, we can leave it there for the time being. Now whatwere the speakers to tell the people? What did the African A "ational Congress expect its representatives to tell 25 the masses in regard to this resistance on their part? My Lord, the African National Congress expected its representatives, in speaking to the people to get to understand and to accept the stand of Congressthat they should not move willingly, but should demonstrate 30 their dislike for not moving - their dislike for moving by not going to Meadowlands willingly.

20 (a.j. LUTHULI) You said previously that the form - the nature of the resistance would depend on the individuals? I did say that. In the final resort, afterall it does depend on the individual. I still say it. And Mr. Luthuli, in the A.N.C. report for , A. 37, the National Executive Report, it says that during your visit on the 10th July of that year, in connection with your visit to the Western.areas of Johannesburg, you called on all South Africanis to consider no sacrifice too groat in opposition to this scheme. 10 Now was it the attitude of the iifrican National Congress that the people should not consider any sacrifice too great in opposing this scheme? That is correct. Not even the supreme sacrifice? That would be correct, depending upon how that comes. 15 Can you suggest how in the light of Congress policy as expounded by you that could come? Not by me, by standing Congress policy, it is not merely just being expounded by me. Standing Congress policy. How in the light of that policy even the 20 supreme sacrifice could be made in opposition to this scheme? My Lord, I have already done so, I think, but I'll repeat... Could I put it to you, is it the same thing that people might be shot by the police if they 25 offer resistance? Yes, if thv^y refuse to comply with the order. If they refuse to comply, the police might then shoot them? Quite so, My Lord. Mr. Luthuli, it would be natural for any- 30 body in the Western Area to enquire just exactly what the African National Congress wants him to do in resisting

21 (A. J. LUTHULI) the removal, do you agree? That is if the particular individual wo.id not "be clear with what he was being told in the light of what I have already said. He would be quite entitled to seek for further information. Now that further information was continual- 5 ly sought by the people. What did the African National Congress exactly expect them to do? My Lords, I wouldn't know the extent and degree to which the people of the area did seek further information, that I wouldn't know. 10 But Mr. Luthuli, you admitted that that was the position in your evidence in chief? Namely? That the people sought that very information? My Lord, it could have arisen from the report of the review afterward?, but I wouldn't know the information - 15 My Lords, it could come from reviewing the report. Mr. luthuli, paragraph - page of your evidence, in Volume 59, Mr. Kentridge puts the following question to you, he refers to the Report on the Western Areas, and he says "The major weakness 20 however, would seem to be the failure of the leadership to tell the people precisely what form of resistance was to be offered cn the day of removal. This information was requested time after time, and at no stage was a clear unequivocal answer given." Then the question 25 is, "Now the authors of this report state the failure to tell the people precisely what form of resistance to be offered, was a weakness", and then the witness says, "I would agree that to a certain extent it would leave the people somewhat hazy". So that it is put to you 30 Mr. Luthuli that time after time the people wanted exactly this information as to what form the resistance was to take.

22 (A.J. IUTHULI) At the bottom of page 5 of the report. Is it correct that time after time the people in the Western Areas wanted to know what they should do? My Lord, as I have already said, insofar as the review reveals it, that would be correct, but what I was trying to say earlier was that I 5 wouldn't personally know, that is from the point of view of the position at the time. If you ask me if I knew what the position was, I wouldn't know. But sofar as that report is concerned, that would be the position. Now the Working Committee would have known 10 that that was the position, that that is what the people wanted to know? But My Lords, it is to me apparent from that report that even the Working Committee was not in a position to know the exact position. What exact position? I mean whether or 15 not the people were in fact enquiring. But as they investigated afterwards to find out, then it transpired that the people were seeking information which they were never given. Mr. Luthuli, this document says, this 20 information was requested time after time, and at no stage was a clear and unequivocal answer given. I put it to you Mr. luthuli, that the African National Congress knew that the people in the Western areas were seeking this information? My Lord, the Crown is dealing with 25 a report reviewing the position, and in reviewing, making enquiries then it came to that conclusion. But I wonder whether, My Lords, it could be extended to the period before the review?-nd say they knew what the position was. Mr. Luthuli, did Congress give a clear and 30 unequivocal indication to the people as to what they should do? My Lords, Congress was quite clear because

23 its policy was clear, and My Lords, I think that insofar as - if one recalls already what some A.N.C. documents say emanating from high authority, that is quite clear, My Lord, insofar as Congress is concerned. Did the African National Congress give the 5 masses a clear and unequivocal answer to the question as to what form their resistance must take? I must revert to the question asked by the Crown first... No, ycu answer this question? How can I 1 answer it without reverting to that, because I think I have already replied to it. When you asked me what we expected our representatives to do, I told you. And we expect our representatives to carry that out. Did you expect your representatives to tell 15 the people that at no stage must they resist to a point which would result in actual force being used by them or by the authorities? My Lords, I think that again in my view that is already covered by my reply to the Crown, namely that we specifically required people not to 20 willingly go, and that if they were forced, then they would go. That was our general instruction and understanding. Forced by whom? Forced by law, the law as administered by the authorities. 25 Now Mr. Luthuli, the issue of a Notice in terms of &he Act that they must leave, is thatforce by law? It is not. Why not? I am sorry, I beg your pardon, I mean it is a requirement by law. 30 Did the people have to obey those notices? In the normal course of things if they were not resisting the removal, you would expect them to...

24 (A.J LUTHULI) No, what was the African National Congress attitude? Did they have to obey that form of force? No, the - I think the attitude of the African National Congress is that they should not obey. When the members of the Resettlement Board 5 come along in terms of the notice and tell them to go, what was the attitude of the African National Congress? Would they have to go? No, the attitude of the African National Congress there was clear, they would expect the people not go. 10 Now what form of force would the law have to apply before the people had to go according to the African National Congress? My Lords, in anticipation of what normally a government might do, we anticipated that they might send the officers of the law to compel 15 them to go. Who were the officers of the law? The police. So the attitude of the African National Congress was that the people should not go before the 20 police come and force them to go? Until the police come along with the truck to get them to go, people must not go. And if the police come, the attitude of the African National Congress was that they must then go 25 willingly? Unwillingly. They must indicate their unwillingness, and if the officer of the law comes along and shows force, then their comes now the point where the individual goes, he has already indicated his unwillingness to go, then he may go. That was the attitude 30 of the African National Congress. Or he could resist, that was his own matter?

25 That was his own matter, yes. My Lords, the African National Congress would not encourage people to resist in the manner in which they as individuals would apply force. But supposing now in theprocessof saying well, I am not leaving my house, and for some reason or other 5 the policeman found it necessary to baton charge the man to leave and in that process he suffered, well he chose that way. Is your attitude then that the African National Congress responsibility for what happened or 10 what could happened ceased the moment an armed policeman arrived in the scene to effect the removal? on it was a matter for the individual? From then I think that is correct. Now Mr. Luthuli, why were the people never 15 told that if police arrive on the scene that they must then under no circumstances offer any further resistance? Well, My Lords, I wouldn't know that the people were not told. You say you don't know that they were not 20 told? I wouldn't know that the people were not told. Do you accept this report of the Secretariat or don't you? I do, but I have said about that report, it was the reviewing conditions afterwards. Now whether at that time the people - whether the Secretariat knew 25 in fact that the people had not been told, I wouldn't read that into that at all. But the Secretariat says so, that the people were never told exactly and uiequivocally what they should do? It could be that the information that the 30 Secretariat received when reviewing the situation, and may not have known at the time.

26 alright Mr. Luthuli, in the light of information that subsequently, after this report, came to the knowledge of the National Executive, is the report wrong in any way? I have no information to contradict that report. I don't possess any information that would make 5 me contradict that, so I say I accept it. Well why do you try and evade the consequences of accepting this report? I am not evading. I am merely saying that I accept that report, it was made by an official body of the African National Congress 10 after investigating the situation. I did not participate in the investigation, but I accept the report. But I am saying that personally I don't possess any information that would cause me to say that report is wrong. Well, I want to ask you now, not personally 1$ but as President-General of the African ^ational Congress, if you accept this report...? I do. Then you also accept that no clear and unequivocal answer was given to the people..? It is clear from this report that that was the situation. 20 And that is a fact? Yes. It is clear from that report that that was one of the things discovered. Now, it was easy to tell the people that when the police arrived there must be no trouble, they 25 must go. It was easy to tell them that beforehand? You mean easy for our representatiges? At meetings and through circulars you could have given a definite lead? But My Lords, I should think that Do you agree? Yes. Why didn't the African National Congress?

27 You are now putting me in theleaim of what the representatives said to the people and going around in a circle I would merely say that we would expect the representatives to tell the people that at meetings and so on. We expected that. 5 Who are the "we" that expected that? By "we" I mean the African National Congress as represented by the Executive and the Working Committee. Now the representatives would be the people who would be speaking for the people in Sophiatown, as you yourself asked me 10 earlier, house to house work... Resha would be a man who would know? Yes. Makgothi would know? Makgothi would know. Mathole would know? Vundhla would know? 15 Yes, they vould know. Do you know whether they ever told the people this? I wouldn't know. But for an example, in the case of R^sha I think I expressed myself quite catagorically in relation to ftesha in one speech that 20 Resha delivered, that is was quite contrary to A.N.C. policy and understanding, and I condemned it. Mr. Luthuli, I put it to you on this matter that the Africa^ National Congress deliberately did not give the people the lead, and I'll tell you why. 25 Because the African National Congress wanted the people to believe that they should go to the extremes in resisting removal? My Lord, I do not agree with the Crown, I do not agree with the Crown, and I would - working from memfery, try to refer the Crown to a 30 document which they produced I think on Friday. It was a press statement, where the organisation made some

28 statements. I was going to refer to that later, but I might give this point, j^st working from my own memory. That statement, although as I indicated first of all its prigin is not clear, but it clearly indicates there, My Lord, that the African National Congress expected the campaign to go along the usual lines. I think if you read that statement, somewhere in the last paragraph, it suggests quite clearly. CASS! REMANDED TO THE 17TH MAY. I960. COURT ADJOURNS.

29 COURT RESUM2S ON THE 17TH MAY, I960. BY THE ACCUSED NOKWE : May it please Your Lordship. My Lords, I have "been asked by the Accused to raise a number of matters which have disturbed them greatly. My Lords, Your Lordship will recall that on the 2nd May Mr. Mandela addressed Your Lordships on an allegation that the authorities had unduly interfered with Professor Matthews. Mr. Mandela gave Your Lordship details of the facts upon which this allegation was made. He emphasised the fact that the conduct of the authorities had raised the issue of privacy between ourselves and our prospective witness. The learned prosecutor Mr. Trengove replied on behalf of the Crown and he stated that the Crown had investigated the position and that there was no foundation whatsoever for the allegations that had been made, and he proceeded to give the version of the Crown as to what had occurred. Your Lordship will further recall that Mr. Mandela stated that the Crown had given the impression that the version of the Accused and Professor Matthews was untrue and he stated that the matter was serious and should be investigated by the Court by hearing evidence. BY MB. JUSTICE RUMPFF s Who made that suggestion? BY MR. NOKWE : Indeed, My Lord, it was clear to us then that the Crown had suggested that the version of the Accused and their witness was a fabrication. We regarded this as a serious reflection on both ourselves and our witness. However, Your Lordship the

30 (A. Presiding Judge has suggested that the case should proceed. On the 10th May Your Lordship, I addressed Your Lordship and stated that Professor Matthews had informed us that he was not willing to give evidence during the State of Emergency. In reply to His Lordship Mr. Justice Bekker I stated that we do not prefer to subpoena him during the state of Emergency. Mr. Trengove for the Crown then stated that the Crown did not accept the position as stated by us, that they did not accept our explanation for not calling Professor Matthews, and he stated, to quote his words to Your Lordship s "That the Accused cannot hide behind the Emergency Regulations as an \ excuse for not calling Professor Matthews". Now My Lords, it was quite clear to us that the suggestion of the Crov/n was that the Accused and/or their witness Professor Matthews were dishonest and intruthful in making the statement which they had made. Your Lordships will recall that I protested and stated that Mr. Trengove's suggestion had no foundation at all, and I proceeded to explain that we were satisfied that Professor Matthews had given us his honest view, and also that we were hiding behind nothing. After this explanation Your Lordship Mr. Trengove stood up to stay that nothing that we had said had changed the attitude of the Crown on this matter, and indeed My Lords, it appears that the subsequent conduct of the Crown and the authorities confirmed it. On Wednesday the 11th, the day after I had made that statement in Court, Professor Matthews we are instructed was driven from the gaol to this Court, not My Lords at the request of the Accused, not My Lords at the request of Professor Matthews, but My Lords ^t the instance of the Crown. We are instructed My Lords,

31 that Professor Matthews met Mr. Trengove who was later joined "by Mr. van Niekerk. Mr. Trengove told him that he had called him to find out about the question of giving evidence. We are instructed that Professor Matthews informed Mr. Trengove that he had written a letter to the Registrar, whereupon Mr. Trengove said that he was not aware of this letter ^nd had not seen it, and thereupon Professor Matthews told him the contents of the letter. Mr. Trengove then told the witness that the Accused could subpoena him if they wanted him to give evidence, and Professor Matthews was returned to prison. At no stage, My Lords, did Mr. Trengove inform us that he was going to interview Professor Matthews, our witness, nor did he subsequently report that he had indeed so consulted or interrogated our witness... BY MR. JUSTICE BEKKER : May I just ask on a point of clarification here, I thought that he was not going to be a Defence witness. Why do you say "our" witness? BY MR. NOKWE ; We say so My Lord because we made it very clear at page that we were not going to call Professor Matthews during the State of Emergency. That we made very, very clear, My Lord. BY MR. JU3TICE BEKKER ; V*ell, we don't know how long the State of Emergency is going to last, BY MR. NOKWB : That is so, My Lord, it might end tomorrow, it might end in the next six weeks. He nevertheless still remains our witness, that we are likely to call him as a Defence witness.

32 BY ME. JUSTICE RUMPFF : On this date, the 11th, Professor Matthews had indicated that he was not going to give evidence. BY MR. NOKWE : During the State of Emergency, that is absolutely clear. BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF ; It doesn't matter, he says he is not going to give evidence and he also indicated that you could subpoena him. You haven't subpoenaed him? BY MR. NOKWE s We have not subpoenaed him yet, My Lords, but I think it is absolutely clear Professor Matthews is a co-conspirator in this case, My Lords, he could certainly not be the Crown's witness. this went on behind our backs. We say Your Lordships that This investigations was obviously conducted by the Crown Your Lordship because the Crown did not accept our explanation and it was done in our view with the hope of finding that statements were made in Court which were not true. On the same day, Your Lordships, Professor Matthews was visited in gaol and interrogated by a gentleman whom he believes to have been a policeman in plain clothes. This gentleman was accompanied by a prison official. Professor Matthews was asked why he did not accept the assurances of the Minister of Justice and whether he could put his hand on his heart and say that there was nothing behind the statement he had made that he was unwilling to give evidence in this Court. Professor Matthews was further told that he was a well educated man and he should know that when the Minister of Justice has given an assurance it should be accepted.

33 BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF : Did you get all this information from Professor Matthews? BY MR. NOKWE 2 That is so, My Lord. This official told Professor Matthews that in his view Professor Matthews should give evidence. Now My Lord, it seems to us that the Crown and the authorities are taking advantage of the State of Emergency and the fact that the Accused in this case and their witnesses are detained, In order to commit what in our view constitutes a gross irregularity. At no stage, My Lords, have we enlisted the assistance of either the Crown or the authorities in the question of preparing our witness. Nor have we asked anybody to persuade Professor Matthews to come and give evidence. We resent, Your Lordships, the suggestion that statements made by us or on our behalf in open Court are false and require detective work, both toy members of the Crown team and by the authorities. We also resent the suggestion made, Your Lordships, without foundation, that statements made by our witness to this Court are untrue and that there is something else behind them. As far as credibility and our honesty is concerned, Your Lordship the Crown will have ample opportunity to test that during these proceedings, Most of all My Lord, we object in the strongest terms to members of the Crown team and the police authorities interrogating our witnesses... BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF : What do you mean by "our witnesses"? You don't want him to give evidence. It is obvious that you don't want him to give evidence. BY MR. NOKWE s We don't say we don't want hirmto give

34 evidence, Your Lordship. We say that the police authorities have no - it isn't the duty of the police authorities to assist us. BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF : I am putting it to you that the impression is that you don't want to call him as a witness. BY MR. NOKWE ; During the State of Emergency, Your Lordships, which might end anytime. And we say this is done merely "because, Your Lordships, Professor Matthews is detained. There is procedure under the Emergency Regulations for detainees to be interrogated, and this is not the procedure. BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF : Now why don't you want to call him to give evidence during the State of Emergency? BY MR. NOKWE s Because Your Lordship he has given us his honest opinion that he is not willing to give evidence during the State of Emergency. BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF : So you don't want to call him because he doesn't want to give evidence. BY MR. NOKWE : Exactly, Your Lordship, that is the statement I made to this Court last week. BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF : If he is willing to give evidence, would you subpoena him? BY MR. NOKWE ; We wouldn't even have to subpoena him, Your Lordship, he would just come and give evidence at our

35 request. Now My Lords, last week when I made this statement about Professor Matthews, I added that we will not require him for further consultations during the State of Emergency. That statement was made "by the Accused, Your lordship, "because Professor Matthews was anxious to get "back to East London where he is detained and he informs us that he was informed by the authorities that they couldn't send him back unless we had made such a statement. We were indeed surprised, Your Lordships, to find out on Sunday that Professor Matthews was still here, and we were not aware until Sunday that in the meantime the authorities were interrogating him. BY MB. TR3NG0VL : My Lords, to a certain extent the statement made by the Accused Nokwe is a reflection on my integrity personally and also on the conduct of the Grown, and in view of that My Lords, - in view of the fact that I am involved personally I do not wish to reply in the language which I would otherwise have done, and I will merely put the facts before Your Lordships as they are available to the Crown and leave the matter in Your Lordships' hands. My Lords, the statement that was made by the Grown that it didn't accept the explanation of the defence for not calling Professor Matthews was based on the fact that the unwillingness of a witness to testify is not excuse for not calling him. Many witnesses are unwilling, and they are brought to Court under subpoena. After the Accused made this statement that they did not intend to call Professor Matthews during the State of Emergency, it came to the notice of the Crown that Professor Matthews was anxious to get back to his original place of detention. In view of the wish expressed

36 by Professor Matthews to go "back and in order not to hamper the Defence in any way, the Crown had to find out whether Professor Matthews was unwilling to give evidence at all or whether he merely refrained from giving evidence during the State of Emergency. Professor Matthews, after the Defence had said that they were not calling him, was called and that question only was put to him, whether he wanted to give evidence as soon as the State of Emergency is lifted, which might happen any day, and in that event the Grown could keep him here so that he would be available at the shortest possible notice to the Defence. On the other hand, if he did not wish to give evidence at all, it seemed more practicable to send him back to his original place of detention. That position was explained to Professor Matthews and he accepted it, and there was non- at no stage, My Lords, was there any, not the slightest intention of interfering with the witness at all, it was merely the convenience of Professor Matthews and his availability to the Defence at short notice. My Lords, yesterday afternoon the Accused Mandela approached us and asked whether they could have a consultation with Professor Matthews, and the Crown then told Mr. Mandela as far as they are aware Professor Matthews has probably gone back to East London. We didn't even know where he was at that stage, but in spite of that and under the impression that they genuinely wanted Professor Matthews for their case, we got in touch with the gaol authorities and found that he was there, and he was once again made available to the Defence yesterday afternoon. Those are the circumstances, and I leave the matt-r in Your Lordships' hands. BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFP : The only other allegation is that somebody

37 visited him in the company of a prison officer and suggested to him that he might give evidence or should give evidence. BY MR. TRSHGOVL : My Lords, we have no knowledge of that at all. BY MR. JUSTICI: 3-JKKTR : Mr. Nokwe, you have heard the Crown's explanation. BY MR. N0KW.O ; I have heard it, Your Lordship, "but Your Lordship, Mr. Trengove says that he asked only one question, and it doesn't seem to he the same as that which Frofessor Matthews explained to us. BY MR. JU5TI3-ii. Bi^KIOilR : There is an apparent conflict of fact. What do you suggest we do about it? BY MR. NCETJ s I leave it entirely in Your Lordship's hands. BY MR. B.JKK^R s You s.e, Mr. Nokwe, it seems to me certain things fall within the jurisdiction of this Court. Now to the extent that matters do fall within our jursidiction we can deal with them. BY MR. Iiomz i In the first place, Your Lordship I find it very difficult to understand why the Crown should go and ask Professor Matthews - why he should be asked when he would bo- called, soon after the emergency or... BY MR. JUSTICE B^KKER ; As I understood the Crown, the Crown wanted 7 v»

38 to know if he is going to "bo called as a witness, they will keep him here, but if his desire is not to give evidence, he can go home, that was the purpose of the interview. BY MR. NOKWH : As Your Lordship pleases. The suggestion seems to be that Professor must have told the Crown that he is not prepared to give evidence, because the Crown said that it was under the impression yesterday that Professor Matthews had gone. But that has never been the attitude of Professor Matthews that he will not give evidence. BY MR. JUSTICE BARKER : It may be that the Crown isn't aware at all of the fact that there was a subsequent interview by certain people in an endeavour to persuade Professor Matthews to give evidence. Now it may be that the Crown does know about it and that whoever interviewed him, if there was this interview, did so under the Emergency Regulations. Now if that is the position, can y u bring it home to the Crown? BY MR. N0KW3 s Your Lordship, if that is the position, the position is that th^ person who interviewed Professor Matthews on Wednesday last week did so under the Emergency Regulation, then that raises an entirely different point, Your Lordship, and a m&sh more serious point which is that our witnesses, the Accused, are subject to interrogation in regard to matters which are before this Court. BY MR. JUoTIC-j RUMPFF : Well, you know what Professor Matthews told you what happened between him and the person who interviewed

39 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.