- 7$00 - and the gallant people of Indo-China showing the imperialists, and in fact showing to all people that imperialism

Transcription

1 - 7$00 - mad designs of the imperialists. We see the heroic the courageous and the gallant people of Indo-China showing the imperialists, and in fact showing to all people that imperialism has come to an end. That foreign domination has come to an end. The people are no longer prepared to live subjected and that they will fight. Let that "be a warning to the imperialists, and if they don't move out of Asia, if they don't move out of Africa, they will have a deathbed view everywhere in the world where people are oppressed. The people are showing clearly that they don't accept any exploitation by any foreign power. On the other hand we see the American Government with its allies trying to mislead the Geneva Conference with a peaceful settlement in the east. We see the American Govern* ment go forward with its plans to have bases all over the world surrounding the Soviet Union. We see declarations by prominent American «ho advocate- parevejjidtive wars. Now, I don't.know what that is. That is supposed to be a war to prevent a war. That is what the American ruling class teaches, but they will not succeed because the peave movement is too strong. The movement of the people in the colonies, the movement of the people everywhere in the oppressed countries, the workers of the metropolitan countries are standing up and are demanding peace in the world. They are standing up and are demanding equal rights. They are standing up and demanding necessities. There- \ fore the American Government will never succeed in its plans. Already she is backing out. I also want to say that our South African youth congress had been playing a big part in South Africa in mobilising support for the people of Kenya. We reiterate our demand that Joma Kenyatta, the leader of the Africa Kenya Union be released from imprisonment. We are reiterating our demands that the people of Kenya should be given land rights throughout the whole country. We reiterate our demands that the

2 British troops, that the foreign domination of Kenya must cease and that all foreign troops should he withdrawn from Kenya. We also send our greetings to the people of Vienna for fighting against British Imperialism there. We send our greetings to the people of the Phillipines, who are waging a war against Imperialism. In fact, we send our greetings to all democracies and to all democratic organisations in the world fighting for peace and freedom, will "be a night; Finally, I wish to say to our leaders there after this night there will he a morning, and to take courage and to take our lesson from Naidhu who was such a great fighter and who expired. To take courage and to take determination in his efforts, and his achievements* and to say to ourselves, let us try and emulate his words, and let us try to go forward and fight for freedom. I wish to say to you from you to the Minister of Justice, that these pieces of paper that are "being posted everyday to our leaders who have been the victims of many many years, that these pieces of paper, these banning orders, willnever stop us from carrying on our work of freedom in South Africa. They cannot stop us, they never will stop us, because we are on the side of peace and progress. In progress, we are on the side of peace in South Africa and the fight for freedom must win. They can remove us from our organisations but I know that many many more men, many able-bodied young men, many in our Indian community, will come up and take our positions, and they will carry on the struggle. But at the same time I wish to say that these people will not stop us. That we will carry on with our work and one day, one day the people of this country will take care of these Fascists who are destroying our country. We will take care of those people who are bringing misery and suffering on our people. will deal with them the way they are dealing with us today. will put them in their places and we will run this country. We We We

3 are capable of running this country, hecause we belong to this country. We are citizens of this country. We demand to run it, and when we do run it, we will run it properly, "because there are good men in this country. They don't know how to run it, they are running it in the interests of certain parties interests, business interests, mining interests, and we stand for the people and the people must reap the "benefit, and they will reap the benefit. Thank you." Nou, sal u verwys na bl. 6; die tweede paragraaf van die end 'Under the present conditions ' U het dit onder die toespraak van Molefe, is dit korrek? Ja. "Under the present conditions the co-operation between your organisation and my organisation should become a real and progressive co-operation. It is not only an act of friendship, it is not only a demonstration to South Africa's rulers of racial harmony, but it should be a very strong link whereby the youth of this country can organise and fight these arrogant rulers of South Africa. You who are gathered in this Conference today are the watchdogs of the non-europeans in South Africa. You are the vanguard of the liberatory movement. Indeed, you are the spotlight of our libsratory army in the coming clash between the forces of liberation and freedom on the one hand, and those of oppression and enslavement on the other hand. must teach us to have confidence in ourselves. This Conference It must teach us to have confidence in the oppressed status of South African society. We must have confidence in the people. It must be no mean thing for us to fulfil our historic mission within our own lifetime. Here you must plan and decide what matters must guide us in the task that lies ahead in the struggle. Eventually we must pledge ourselves here today that we shall change the present order in South Africa and bujod a new one, in which the exploitation of man by man will be completely obliterated and the domination of whites over black will be a thing of the past^

4 That is a new truly democratic South Africa which constitutes the country we are dreaming of today. That is the South Afrioa which we are telling you we have in our hands within our own lifetime. That is the South Africa free from exploiters and oppressors, not the South Africa of the Malans and the Strauses, not the South Africa of the Oppenheimers and the \i- \c Schlesingers, not the South Africaof the De Beers and all the mine magnates, "but a South Africa of the people of South Africa. Friends, the struggle is still going on and we must continue the struggle whatever the odds may "be. However, great and "bitter the struggle, however complete the sacrifices, we must pledge ourselves here and now to free ourselves within the shortest possible time, within our own lifetime, from the merciless and sadistic rulers now running the affairs of our country. Lastly friends, we must say to these people in Africa and the world over, that their time is up, that they must leave the colonial peoples alone if they don't want trouble. The chains which once "bound the oppressed people are now cracking, the Frsmch imperialists in Morocco today are no longer free, "because the oppressed people there are giving them a good time. History is on our side, science is on our side, the whole world in fact is with us. The world federation of democratic youth with a membership of over 93 million people are with us, why should we fear Malan and his herrenvolk? Friends, forward to freedom in our lifetime. On behalf of my own organisation, the African National Congress Youth League (Transvaal) I want to see our Conference a success. We are with you in the struggle which lies ahead. Thank you." That is all I will ask this witness to read. (No further questions) NO CROSS-EXAMINATION:

5 ISAAC SHARP, duly sworn, EXAMINED BY P.P.: You have already given evidence? Yes. On the 13th June, 1954, did you keep observation? I did. Where? At 4 Kort Street, Johannesburg. Did you make certain notes in your pocket-book? I did. You have your pocket-book now before you? That is correct. Did you write down certain names of persons? I did. Who were those persons, what did they do, where did you see them? These persons they entered No. 4 Kort Street. Do you know that place? I know the place. Whose office is it? It was the Indian Congress Offices, Transvaal, Will you go through your list of names and mention the names of Accused persons? A.M. Kathrada (18); Joseph Molefe (43)I Moosa Moolla (44); Dr. Moosa (45); Paul Joseph (14). That is all. Prom what time did you keep observation? I kept observation from 9.10 a.m. until 2 p.m. You hand in your pocket book G.1156? Yes, (No further questions) CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. COAKER: Where did you take up your position? I took my position up across the street. And the people could see you there, I suppose? I think so, they could. You made no effort to conceal yourself? No, I didn't. And they made no effort to conceal their entrance? No. How many people in all entered these premises on that morning, do you know? I don't know; unless it is in my notes. I notice that you have got a note that 59 people entered,

6 including 8 natives, is that correct? That will he correct. What could you see, could you see the front door of the premises? I could see the front door. And the person whose names you noted are persons who entered through the front door of the premises? Yes.? I didn't. Did you make a note of the time at which anybody left You made no note at all about anybody leaving? No. (No further questions) MR. SLOVO; NO QUESTIONS; NO RE-EXAMINATION: MR. VAN NIEKERK NOW APPEARS FOR THE CROWN: GERHARDUS PAULUS VAN PAPENDORP, duly sworn, EXAMINED BY P.P.: Are you a sergeant, S.A.Police, stationed at Johannes burg? I am at The Grays. On 22/6/57, did you proceed to the offices of the S.A Congress of Democrats, Somerset House, Johannesburg? Correct. Did you there under the authority of a search warrant search the premises? Yes. You really searched for some documents and articles relating to a protest demonstration and an alleged strike? Correct. But then you found certain documents there, and you seized those documents? Yes, I did. Now, these documents, have you marked these documents? Yes, Exh. C.1119, Booklet Liberation, 23/2/57. Pamphlet, Bandoeng Day Rally, C Publication 'The Democratic Journalist' C Waxsheet or stencil of the Freedom Charter, C t Stencil, C.1123, for a pamphlet 'Verwoerd's Command or Your Conscience.' C.1124 Resolution of the Cape Coloured

7 Franchise adopted "by annual national conference of S.A.C.P.O. C.1125 Stencil, for a pamphlet 'Boycott.' 'The Cor-ordinating Council has now called off the boycott officially.' C.1126, two stencils, a roneod circular 'Recommendations from the N.E.C Organisational technique.' C.1126A, a stencil for a circular signed Yetta Barenblatt, National Secretary. Do you know Yetta Barenblatt the National Secretary? I do. She is Accused No. 3. C.1127, stencil for a pamphlet Mass Protest Conference 'Verwoerd Must Go.' Sunday 26th May, 1957, at 9 a.m. C.1128, pamphlets 'To All Citizens of South Africa.' C.1129, pamphlets '156 South Africans of all colours have been charged with high treason.' C.1130, memorandum on anti-pass campaign. The last paragraph reads; "In such a long drawn out war as the war against thepass laws, it would be foolish to expect that victory can be won by a single action of thepeople. The pass system is the foundation of the whole cheap labour system in South Africa, and the ruling class will not easily be forced to give it up. It follows that victory in the struggle against the pass laws must not be looked for in every minor skirmish against the enemy. In a long drawn out battle there will be many minor victories, minor defeats, many advances, many retreats, but final victory for thepeople which means the end of the cheap labour system of South Africa can only be finally achieved by the over-throw of the ruling class, and by the achievement of the freedom charter as the ruling policy of South Africa." C.1131, minutes of the N.S.C. 13/6/57. C.1132, memorandum on organisation. C.1134, no, first there is C.1133, a box containing 21 stencils, which comprise exhibits C.1134 to C C.1134, Special Conference issue, 'Counter-Attack' April 20th, C.1135, A.E.M. News bulletin of the African Education Movement, Vol. II, No. 11, April to May, C.1136, Circular letter, 37 West Street,

8 P.O. Box 9207, Johannesburg, dated 6/5/57, signed P. Mathole, African National Congress, Transvaal; A.E. Patel, Transvaal Indian Congress; L.E. Morrison,. S.A,Coloured Peoples Organisation, Transvaal; S.A,Congress of Democrats, Johannesburg Region...the name is indistinct; S.A.Congress of Trade Unions, L. Masina; L. Ngoyi, Federation of S.A.Women, Transvaal Region. Do you know these people? I do. (Mathole 37; Patel 58; L.E. Morrison 89; Masina 34; L, Ngoyi 52.) Will you continue with the exhibits? C.1137, Circular letter, 37 West Street, P.O. Box 9207, Johannesburg, dated 10/5/57, signed by P. Mathole^ African National Congress, Transvaal, A.E, Patel, Transvaal Indian Congress; L. Morrison, S.A.Coloured Peoples Organisation; S.a.Congress of Democrats, Johannesburg; Y. Barenblatt, S»A. Congress of Trade Unions; L. Mesina, Transvaal; Federation of S,A.Women, Transvaal Region, L. Ngoyi* Do you know Y*. Barenblatt? Yes. (Accused No. 3.) C.1138, Circular letter, 37 West Street, P.O. Box 9207, Johannesburg, dated 15th May, 1957, Conference on Native Laws Amendment Bill, signed for P. Mathole, S. Lollan, L. Mesina, A.E. Patel, Y. Barenblatt, L. Ngoyi. Do you know S. Lollan? Yes. (Accused No, 22.) C.1139, circular letter African National Congress Youth League, it is not signed, re the commemoration of the Bandoeng Conference, C , circular letter, dated 10th May, 1957, Hillbrow Branch, signed A. Heyman, hon. secretary. 0,1141, pamphlet 'Verwoerd's latest monstrosity, the Native Laws Amendment Bill, Your duty as a citizen, come to a public meeting at St. Luke's Hall, 8 o'clock, 30th April, , history No. 3, Group B, R. First, commences 'What in your opinion were the weaknesses if any in the Vienna Settlement.' (Exhibits handed in.) No further questions.)

9 CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. COAKBR: Tell me, Sgt. what is the Vienna Settlement? I do not know. What is the slave trade? Do you mean trading in slaves? Yes, when was the slave trade abolished, do you know? Very long ago. This note, 'What in your opinion were the weaknesses, if any, of the Vienna Settlement' C.1142, irr its very first paragraph it indicates that amongst matters which still had to "be decided for the Vienna Settlement, Germany and Switzerland had to be given constitutions, the abolition of the slave trade, the navigation of international rivers were also included on the agenda. When do you think this Vienna Settlement "took place is your European history not very good? No, I'm afraid not* Do you think it was the settlement after the Napoleonic War or possibly the settlement after the 30 years war, or after the 100 years wa*; could it have been the settlement after any of those wars BY THE COURT: I don l t know whether the witness" opinion really matters. BY MR. COAKERs Well, I am going to go on from here, Sir, you recognise, I think, Sergeant, that the contsnts of this document indicate that it is dealing with European history of the 17th and 18th Century you have read it I suppose, you seized it? Yes, I read it, not when I seized it. But you have read it? No, I seized the stencil. When did you make this copy, or was this something that you seized? No, I made that from the stencil. Let me read you a paragraph "The aims of the great powers centred round what came to be the focal point of the

10 conference, the Polish-Saxon question. In 1750 Poland had possessed a large area of territory and a large population. She had, however, proved incapable of maintaining her independence against the expansive tendencies of her neighbours,"and so on. You went to this office with a search warrant to look for documents in connection with a certain protest strike I think you told us? Yes, that is correct. And you decided instead to seize any pamphlets and circulars and stencils that you could find? Yes, I seized some stencils, some pamphlets.,.. Some airculars? That is correct. It had nothing to do with this particular strike, had it? This one pamphlet here has got something to do with the strike, You see, what you have got here, amongst other things, is some netes on European history about the 18th, 19th, possibly al so the 17th centuries, which contains a bibliography recommending students, or whoever it was designed for, to read the"aftermath of Europe" by Schenk,"Frederick van Gentz" by Sweet, "The Congress of Vienna" by Nicholson, "Conflicts" by Namia and "The Foreign Policy of Castleray" by Webster, Any idea who Castleray was? I am not sure. Never heard of him? (No reply) Well, having equipped yourself with a search warrant relating... to seize matters relating to a certain strike, why did you seize these other documents? I seized the other documents because I thought they could be used as evidence. In this case? In this case. But you see, your search warrant didn't entitled you to seize documents which might be used as evidence in this case; your search warrant related to documents relating to certain strikes, didn't it? That is correct.

11 Why didn't you get another search warrant? BY THE P.P.; Your Worship, the fact of taking the documents without a search warrant does not affect the admissibility thereof. The fact that they wore taken without a search warrant does not make these documents inadmissible. BY THE COURT; I don't know what the object is of these questions. If he has exceeded his authority, how does it affect the issue? BY MR. COAKER; I have indicated, Sir, and so have other members and persons appearing in this matter, that it may become relevant to investigate the frame of mind which has been displayed by certain persons representing the Crown and the police in these investigations and in this matter, and I submit I am entitled to put a question... BY THE COURT; You have in mind the bona fides of the police in taking action? BY MR. COAKER; Yes, Your Worship, I submit I am at least entitled to explore tha, without necessarily attacking it. BY THE COURT; I think you may proceed. BY MR. COAKER; And it may happen, of course, that I may attack it. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COAKER CONTD.; Did you trouble to satisfy yourself that the contents of the stencils that you seized, before you seized them...? As far as possible, yes. Did you satisfy yourself in any way at all as to the contents of this stencil about the Polish-Saxon question in 1750? I couldn't; I had to hold the stencil the other way round in order to read what was on there. It is difficult; I read a small portion of it. I could see it was some kind of history. And this stencil for that particular document too was in a bundle with the others that I have just handed in.

12 Well now, what is true, that you read a portion of it, or that it was in a "bundle and you couldn't read it? No, I read a portion of it. And which portion did you read? Right at the beginning. Can you remember what it was about? Did you read about the abolition of the slave trade? I cannot remember now whether I read it then. Well, what did you read, the first paragraph? Yes, I was trying to make out what it is. The first paragraph has some reference to the fact that the abolition of the slave trade had also to be discussed. I don't suppose it occurred to you when you seized these stencils that you might be able to embarrass this organisation or cause it difficulty by depriving it of some of the material that was in use in its office? I didn't want to get them into difficulty or to embarrass them. You were only interested in providing further evidence for this eight months trial? Yes. That was your purpose? Yes. (No further questions) MR. SLOVO ADDRESSES COURT: (Application for C.1142 to be excluded from the record.) APPLICATION REFUSED: COURT ADJOURNS:

13 COURT RESUMES 11TH SEPTEMBER, APPEARANCES AS BEFORE s MR. COAKER ADDRESSES COURT ; Accused Absent : Back in Court ; Medical Certifi-: cates handed in i In Default : Same as on 10th September, No. 41, J. Modise; 83, L. Forman No. 41, J. Modise; 83, L. Forman No. 20, L. Levy; 118, T. Mqotha. P.P. ADDRESSES COURT (MR. VAN NIEKERK ) 2 May it please Your Worship. We have now come to the stage where the Crown is obliged to ask for a postponement of the proceedings for a period of about a month. The reasons are that as at present advised the only evidence that remains to be led is some formal evidence, that is signatures of Accused on documents and the positions occupied by the Accused in the various organisations. Now some months ago the Crown was given the assurance that these matters will be admitted by the Defence, and it was only about a fortnight ago that the Crown was informed that the Defence is not prepared to make these admissions. Now it will be necessary to have the signatures on the documents examined by handwriting experts, and that will take anything from two to three weeks to get the necessary evidence available and place it before the Court. If these admissions had been forthcoming as had been expected, the Crown would have been in a position to close its part of the qnquiry this week. I might say that this additional evidence will take from nine t. ten Court days, that is an estimate. I therefore formally apply for a postponement of the enquiry until the 14th October, which will be four weeks from the coming Monday. MR. ROSENBERG ADDRESSES COURT s May it please Your Worship. Your Worship, we have

14 a counter application in regard to the postponement to make, but before I venture on that application, may I make it perfectly clear that as far as I am concerned I have given no assurance at any time to the Crown that I was prepared to admit this evidence. If the Crown thought I was, then I am quite prepared to concede that there might have been a misunderstanding, but I have been resolute in my attitude during this case that there would be no admission on this, and if I had been approached, I w.uld have made it clear to my learned friends. I am quite prepared to concede the position that my learned friend may have understood, bona fide understood the position from the utterances of other Counsel in the case that admissions would be made. No^, Sir, I come to the counterapplication, and on my learned friend's statement, we now have reached the conclusion of the Crown's case. Now we are making an application, Sir, which I have defined a little more minutely later for a lengthy postponement, and in order to found the application, Sir, I would like to point out to Your Worship that this preparatory examination, has involved charges inter alia of high treason, and we must approach the position on the basis that the most serious, or one of the most serious crimes in vu.r legal system is that of high treason. In this case, the Crown's case and I think Your Worship will agree with me, the Crown's case in the opening address by my learned friend, tmght through the presentation of his numerous documents, the calling of many witnesses, has involved a large number of facets, most of them of great complexity, and difficulty, and many issues arise in this trial, which are of great difficulty and which require considerable research, both factually and with regard to the law applicable. Now, Sir, I think it would be proper to say, Sir, that these proceedings taking into account its length, the nature and the extent of the evidence, the numerous documents presented, the large num-

15 "ber of Accused, who have "been charged, that these proceedings are without parallel, certainly without parallel in this country and without precedent and it would not he improper to say, Sir, that as far as the Accused are concerned who occupy the dock, that it could he described as a mass trial. It is broadly in the light of these considerations that on behalf of the Accused who are being charged with this most serious crime that it is desired to present to this Court in this preparatory examination, a full and carefully prepared argument on this charge. And also an argument, Sir, on certain aspects of the evidence which will involve a gr^at deal of work. It is also desired, Sir, in this preparatory examination, to call evidence, firstly to call the Accused, or a large number of the Accused, to give evidence, as well as a number of important witnesses outside the ranks of the Accused. Now all this, i Sir, will involve long and protracted work by the legal representatives for the Defence, work of a nature, Sir, that would be quite impossible to do in a period of a month, which is the time now required by the Court. Sir, it is after the most serious consideration, and with a deep sense of my responsibility, not only to the Accused but as an officer of this Court, that I state that beyond doubt it is essential both in the interests of the Accused, and we say also in the interests of justice which always involves fairplay, that a lengthy adjournment should be granted. v 'o submit, Sir, that it would be the duty of this Court to grant such an adjournment unless Your Worship is satisfied, positively satisfied that there will be prejudice to the Crown. This case, Sir, because of its unique setting, because of the unique circumstances arising, is a case where the fullest latitude, consistent with the interests of justice should be afforded to the Accused to present before Your Worship their version and their defence. Now those are the broad considerations, Sir, and I

16 now cone to the detailed considerations which will indicate to Your Worship why we require this lengthy adjournment. Now, firstly, Sir, I understand that the Defence, and my learned friend can contradict me if I am wrong here, I understand that the Defence originally intimated to the Crown that it would require a lengthy postponement of I think it was then mentioned three months after the Crown had concluded its evidence. It has now "become obvious, Sir, that three months would be a very short period in order to work up a - the various matters to which I have referred torn Now, we refer to in particular the following: Your Worship will be pleased to bear in mind that the Crown, prior to opening the preparatory examination, had taken two years to prepare its case. That is that portion of its case which excludes the evidence investigated recently and prepared by the Crown during the preparatory examination. That is that portion of the case, I may remind Your V/orship, relating to the Cheesa-Cheesa letteis, the Defiance Campaign, the School Boycott and the Mau-Mau trouble in Kenya. Those have been recent developments investigated by the Crown, long after the commencement of this preparatory examination. Secondly, Sir, after that preparatory examination work of two years, has taken the Crown approximately nine months to present its evidence. Now, Sir, until the preparatory examination itself, the record of its proceedings I am instructed, approximately eight thousand pages. The documentary exhibits produced number approximately ten thousand - I may say plus or minus - but we can take a round figure ten thousand, and there are hundreds of transcripts of speeches. Now the preparatory examination record and the exhibits have not as yet become available to the Defence and that has been due to no fault on the part of the officials concerned with the preparation of the record, but owing to an insufficiency of funds. We have not be en able to raise sufficient funds to purchase such

17 records. It is now, Sir, hoped that sufficient funds will "be raised and that we will be able to get the record in the near future. Now, Sir, in addition to that, it is desired as I have indicated that after the charges have been presented by the Crown, that argument should "be presented and I would like to say, Sir, that in stating that we would also like that before a committal on the opening address by my learned friend, that that argument should be presented. And that argument, Sir, not only by Senior Counsel, who Your Worship will observe who were not in Court at all times, and who must necessarily be possessed of the record and the exhibits, but also by those Counsel who have been in Court throughout the proceedings and who will similarly need to read the record and study it. That Sir, would be very essential. We say, Sir, that no member of the defence team can be expected properly to prepare an argument without studying this lengthy record and the thousands of exhibits. I therefore emphasise, Sir, that in order properly to prepare argument, considerable time is required in order first to get the record and the exhibits, secondly to study such record and the exhibits, and thereafter, that of course involves most of the work, to prepare and formulate the argument. Then in addition, over and above the time required for the preparation of argument, further time is necessary in order to decide upon witnesses to be called. Now that, Sir, in that connection, Sir, you will remember that it was made clear from the beginning of these proceedings by the Defence, particularly by my larned friend Mr. Berrange who made the opening speech, that the Defence would contest the allegations made at this preparatory examination in these proceedings, and that it would necessarily lead evidence in rebuttal. Now, to that end, Sir, it is now necessary to decide what witnesses should be called by the Defence, and this includes witnesses drawn not only from the ranks of the Accused, Sir, but also

18 witnesses from other parts of the country, and perhaps, Sir, from other parts of the world. That, Sir, I need not underline would involve an immensity of labour. Now to decide this question, it would be necessary at the start to precognise all the Accused, this means consulting with and taking statements from a large number of individuals who now face Your Worship in the dock. That, Sir, Counsel feel could not adequately be done under a period in itself of ten weeks. It is not only statements to be taken from those who are to be called, but statements from all in order to determine which of the Accused are to be called. It would also, Sir, in addition, be necessary for the Defence team, if I may use that phrase, to consult and take statements of witnesses not drawn from the ranks of the Accused. Witnesses who have occupied high and executive positions in the Congresses and organisations which have been referred to during the course of this examination. Now these witnesses, Sir, are in various parts of the Union, which will have to be visited in order to take statements from them at their various places of residence or employment. We estimate, Sir, that a period of two months toould be required for this. Now, Sir, you will remember that during the course of the examination, a witness, Professor Murray was called, and we emphasise, Sir, that the Crown case is founded oh, to some extent, on the technical and theoretical evidence presented by Professor Murray. Now the Defence, Sir, have in consequence been in correspondence with eminent and highly placed professors and lecturers of philosophy, and other persons who are similarly qualified, who have been studying some portions of the evidence, and it may be necessary for the Defence, Sir, either to interview or to take statements from such witnesses. Nov*/ as far as the Union is concerned, Sir, it will be necessary for a member of the Defence team to visit Cape Town and Durban in order to enable him to consult with what I may term our own

19 experts. Now, you will remember, Sir, that Professor Murray in evidence admitted that he had to spend two years in studying the evidence on which he based his testimony. And it would be impossible to expect such expert witnesses as the Defence might desire to call to furnish their report within a week, or even a month or two. It is therefore submitted, Sir, that it is not asking too much if we ask for a lengthy adjournment, to enable our witnesses to qualify themselves to give such expert evidence as the Defence might feel it necessary to lead. Now, Sir, in addition, we feel that it would also be necessary for some member or members of the Defence team to visit England and the United States of America to interview witnesses with whom the Defence have been in contact. Now to that end, Sir, my learned friend, Mr. Berrange, has made application for a passport to enable him to visit the United States and the United Kingdom, immediately to interview certain witnesses. On certain portions of the evidence and all the exhibits - (noise). clear. Perhaps I should repeat that to make it perfectly I indicated that it would also be necessary for some member or members of our Defence team to visit England and the United States of America to interview witnesses with whom the Defence have been in contact on various aspects of the case. I said, Sir, to that end, my learned friend, Mr. Berrange, has made application for a passport to enable him to visit the United Kingdom and the United States of America immediately, in order to interview these witnesses for the purpose of discussing with them certain portions of the Crown's evidence and certain issued that arise on that, and also portions of the documentary evidence. My learned friend, Mr. Berrange, intends leaving, Sir, immediately his passport has been obtained. Now, S ir, when the Crown opened and outlined its case, you will remember that he went into great detail in indicating what it was going to prove and what the evidence would be. Your

20 Worship has the "benefit of a transcript of my learned friend's opening address. At that stage, you will remember that no mention was made of any evidence relating to the Dcfiance Campaign, the school boycott, the Cheesa-Ciieesa letters and the Mau-Mau activities in Kenya. Evidence in regard to these aspects were only sought and obtained by the Crown months after the preparatory examination had opened. You will remember Sir, that despite objection taken by the Defence on the ground of irrelevancy to this evidence, Your Worship with respect allowed it to be led upon being given an assurance that the links connecting the Accused with this type of evidence would be produced later. Now, Sir, saying so with the greatest respect to Your Worship, we say that the Defehce is still of the opinion that this type of evidence is inadmissible. But in view of the Crown's assurances and the Court's ruling as to its admissibility, it has now become necessary for the Defence to investigate these aspects and to interview witnesses in regard thereto, and to take their statements. I am informed that this will necessitate journeys to various parts of the Uni on by one or more members of the Tefence team, and insofar as the evidence relating to the Mau-Mau trouble in Kenya is concerned, it will probably be necessary for a member of the team to travel to Kenya and perhaps to London in ord r to investigate the allegations made by the witness Lloyd-Parker, and to refute many of his statements. Your Worship will remember particularly that he referred to the subversive activities the part of certain members of the House of Commons and Congress of the People against Imperialism, and also I think the name of the Archbishop of Canterbury was mentioned. Now it has been stated, Sir, the Crown has taken two years to prepare and present its case, that is only that portion of the case which excludes the latter evidence relating to the Defiance Campaign, the school boycott, and the Cheesa-

21 Cheesa letters, etc. It is submitted, therefore that it is rot unreasonable, indeed absolutely necessary for the Defence to demand a period of at least five months to enable it to rebut the Crown's allegations and to prepare its own case in reply. Now, Sir, in regard to the period, there will be, we say, no prejudice to the Crown, because if the Court acceeds to the request, the Crown itself requires a postponement of one month, for the purpose of obtaining evidence its had indicated, I understand, Sir, I may be wrong here, but the understanding is that thistrial, the trial if there is a committal, would not - could not possibly start before March or April of next year. In any event, Sir, whatever Your Worship's attitude might be, it would be quite impossible for the Defence to be ready to proceed with the trial if it commenced before March or April next year, but I would emphasise that it is not contemplated by anybody that it will come on at least before March or April next year. Now that being the case, if a remand of five months is given to the Defence, the trial would still be able to proceed at the time indicated, and therefore it is suggested for the reason I will mention, that if Your Worship acceeds to our request for a postponement, that the Crown's evidence which it now desires to present after a month, should "be presented at the ti 1 e that Your Worship grants the postponement for this reason. There is considerable hardship to the Accused. I now want to put the aspect relating to the Accused. If a month's adjournment is granted, Sir, there will firstly be no opportunity to a number of' the Accused of getting work in order to sustain themselves, and when I enquired, Sir, if q month's adjournment is granted a number of the Accused who come from outside the Transvaal, would have to be sent back to their hoijes, and I have been told, Sir, and I am quite satisfied with the accuracy of that evidence, that the cost of transport to and from their homes would amount to 750. That what it

22 cost the Fund each tine there has "been an adjournment. Now if the lengthy adjournment which we ask for is granted, a large number of the Accused could obtain work and sustain themselves and we can also nininise the expense. Now, Sir, these are the broad considerations which I put before Your Worship, I would add, Sir, that it is the unanimous wish of the Accused that a lengthy adjour$ent should be granted. I have mentioned earlier, Sir, that in a proceedings of this nature involving a charge of the seriousness such as high treason, the Court should allow every latitude for the presentation of the Defence. And I would like to emphasise, Sir, that it would be idle to say that the Defence can present its case at the trial. In justice and as of right, Sir, the Defence have the right in law to endeavour to satisfy Your Worship that there is no case to go to trial and to put forward its evidence and its argunents to that effect. Now, Sir, Your Worship will either accede to our request which we submit is a reasonable request, or Your Worship will refuse it. Sir, with the utmost respect to Your Worship, and not using this considera tion in any sense in teorum, I would indicate to Your Worship and to the Crown, here and now, that if this lengthy adjournment is not granted, it will be quite impossible for the Defence, and as far as I am concernod, Sir, I can state without any qualification or reservation that I would not be prepared to put any argument before the Court as to whether or not the Accused should be committed. Now, Sir, it raises a serious situation. If Your Worship, if assured by the Defence that it cannot put forward the proper arguments and adduce the necessary evidence in the time allowed to it, then I submit, Sir, that Your Worship will accede to the request, unless Your Worship finds that the request for the postponement is either made recklessly or without a due regard to the proper considers^ tions arising in this case. For these reasons, Sir, and

23 particularly again stating what I have indicated before, that if Your Worship does not accede to our request, the Accused will he muzzled in the presentation of their argument - completely muzzled in the presentation of their argument and evidence, and we submit that Your Worship, in the circumstances now arising will grant a postponement, we say for five months, but we say in any case a lengthy postponement. Mr. Rosenberg, you have mentioned certain times required by the Defence in the preparation of certain aspects of the Defence. You have mentioned for instance to precognise all the accused, which you indicated would be necessary, would take about ten weeks. And to take statements from other witnesses for the Defence, you estimate would take about two months. I don't know whether you mentioned what time would be required by Defence Counsel to prepare argument, I take it that Defence Counsel have already studied certain aspects of the case and I should like you now to more or less indicate the time that would be required to complete your presentation of argument. I understand that you are going to argue at the close of the Crown case, that is after the indictment is presented, you are going to argue and make an application for the general discharge on the ground that no sufficient case has been made out. BY MR. ROSENBERG s Or on the ground of no common purpose - various aspects. Now, Sir, I can assist Your Worship only by referring to the circumstances which attend myself. As far as I am concerned Sir, a minimum period which I would require, and I mean a minimum period, Sir, I am not exaggerating it in any sense, a minimum period I would require to present an argument, that is with members of my Defence team Sir, haring off to America on the one side and Kenya on the other, and leaving me

24 to bear the brunt of the work there, as a minimum period I would require three to four months. And that would mean giving up most of the leasure I feel I am entitled to. BY MR. BERRANGE s I wonder if I could be allowed audience Sir, in regard to this matter? I have really very little to add, if anything to that which has already been said by Mr. Rosenberg in this matter, other than to say, Sir, as he has already indicated, he has been speaking on behalf of all the Accused who have unanimously instructed us for the reasons advanced by Mr. Rosenberg to make this application - when I say for all the Accused, I should perhaps exclude Mr. Slovo, who I think would also like to address Your Worship in regard to this matter. Your Worship has raised the question of the time that is involved in certain aspects of the matter. Perhaps if one could be practical about it, I could endeavour to do a little mathematical sum. Now, in a trial of this sort which doesn't confern itself with the usual allegation of a petty theft or some other matter that usually comes before the Criminal Courts, is a trial, as my learned leader has pointedout, is of the gravest importance, particularly when one has regard to the nature of the allegations being made in this matter. And therefore when one comes to interview clients and witnesses, one does so naturally with the greatest care and give the greatest consideration and time in doing such interviews. Now, it has always been my experience, Sir, and I am speaking now of an experience that is taken over many, many years. More years than I care to count. That it is impossible properly to precognise any witness or any Accused person in regard to a matter which requires thought, in regard to a matter which the issues are serious, inaa lesser period than two to three hours. Which means, if Your Worship works it out, that at the most, if we had to precognise a hundred and fifty eight

25 Accused persons, and we did it at the rate of three a day, giving us a five and a half day working week, if Your Worship would care to work that out, Your Worship would find that it is just on the vicinity of nine weeks. I don't know whether it would actually work out like that, because you have in mind one person doing that... BY MR. BERPaiNGE : That is essential, Sir. May I say why? Essential ' that one person should do that, because when it comes to the leading of evidence, the person who precognises the witness is the person who should lead the witness, and the person who is in charge of the presentation of the Crown case - of the Defence case, is the person who must necessarily see all the witnesses in advance and be prepared to lead them in evidence. You have in mind one of the Defence Counsel leading all the evidence forthe Defence? BY MR. BERRANGE : Or perhaps with the assistance of another. Then of n, course Your Worship must realise that the number of Defence Counsel is somewhat limited. We can't call upon a vast array of Counsel to do this work, that work and otjier work. We are not in the fortunate and happy position that the Crown is, in which it can get assistance for itself whenever it so desires. Now, as Your Worship realises there is the work involved and entailed not only in precognising the Accused, there is that work involved and entailed in precognising the witnesses to whom Mr. Rosenberg has already referred, both who are resident in other parts of the country and who have or do still occupy executive positions or high positions in the various organisations which we understand to be on trial. That means that some Counsel or members of the Defence team will have to travel

26 round the Union, visiting various places in the Union where these people are resident. Then, Sir, there is also the fact that certain Counsel will have to devote themselves to nothing other than a study, and a detailed study of certain aspects of the record, and I have particularly in mind, Sir, the fact that at various times, as has been mentioned by Mr. Rosenberg, the Defence have taken objection to certain evidence that has been led on the submission that such evidence was inadmissible, for various reasons. And Your Worship will recollect that time and time again throughout these proceedings, the Crown has sought leave to introduce that evidence on an assurance being given that ihe connecting links would later be produced. Now, Sir, we are faced with a record of eight thousand pages, and so far as I can recollect, in many instances, the connecting links hove not been produced or forged, but in order to ascertain that, what is reguired is a very close and detailed study of eight thousand pages of record in order to see whether there has or has not indeed been a link up. Then there is a further aspect to which... What is your estimate of the time of this aspect? BY MR. BERRANGE s I don't know Sir, how - Your Worship once commented on the fact that I seem to be able to read documents very rapidly, but I don't know, Sir, really how long it is going to take to read eight thousand pages. Well, I suppose one hasn't really got to read all the eight thousand pages, but Your Worship can imagine how long it will take, and at the same time to make notes and bear in mind every facet where one is dealing with the question as to whether a certain type of evidence has indeed been linked up as has been suggested by the Crown or not. It seems to me virtually impossible to make a guess in regard thereto. Then one would also have to refer

27 to the documentary evidence... If this is going to fall on your shoulders, then I take it that you would "be in a much better position to conclude this more expeditiously, because you know much of the evidence, the nature of the evidence. BY MR. BERRANGE! Yes, that is so, Sir. There is another aspect that I think I should mention, and when I do mention it, I don't say so in any sense of criticising the Crown, but Your Worship will recollect that when Professor Murray gave his evidence, as a result of certain discussions in Court between my learned friend Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. van Niekerk, who I think led the evidence, it was intimated then when the dicta, evidence in regard to the dicta was being led, one or other of the Defence Counsel asked whether we could be acquainted with the eourse of each and every dicta, and my learned friend for the Crown was unable to indicate its source. I happened to look at this record only the other day, Sir, and I am perfectly certain that I am being accurate in what I am saying, and at that stage, Sir, an undertaking was given by the Crown that it would at some stage indicate to the Court, or to the Defence, who it was that was alleged to have said each thing and fthere these dicta are alleged to have come from. """here has been a modification of the statement by j. the Prosecutor - unfortunately you were absent - I don't know whether that was conveyed to you. In fact I understood the Crown is not going to quote passages from... BY THE P.P. : May I say that I have it ready. I will hand them a copy of it.

28 BY MR. BERRANGE ; May I know when? BY MR. P.P. : This afternoon or tomorrow morning. BY MR. BERRANGE : Then there is the other aspect, Sir. We are dealing here with a hundred and fifty eight persons. In order to link them up with any allegations made hy the Crown, one would have to study the record and the evidence for the purpose of ascertaining how the Crown has established any connecting lihk between each one of these individuals. Now, I had hoped that when the Crown ultimately comes to address Your Worship, it would be in a position to say that No. 1 Accused was a member of this organisation, and at such and such a day he is alleged to have done this according to the evidence, and for this, that or other reason we link up No. 1. The same with No. 2, the same with No. 3 and so forth. And if the Crown had been able to do that and to present the Defence in advance with a t schedule indicating how it alleges each one of the Accused is linked up, it would save us a certain amount of work in the investigation of the manner in which each one of the Accused is alleged to have been involved. I understand that the Crown is not in a position to do that - I am not, as I say, saying this in any form of criticism of the Crown, but it means that we have got to do it. It means that the Defence will have to do it. low, Sir, as I pointed out, the team - the Defence team is limited in its personnel. Some will have to attend to travelling around the country side for the purpose of collecting witnesses' statements of the nature already indicated by my learned friend; some, Sir, will have to engage themselves in precognising witnesses both in Johannesburg and also taking statements from the Accused. Some will have to concern themselves with the record itself for the purpose of seeing how one or other or all the accused are alleged to have

29 "been linked up by the Crown, and whether the Crown has indeed fulfilled its undertaking or its promise to link up the Accused in regard to evidence which we from time to time have alleged to have "been inadmissible. And on top of that, Sir, all Counsel do necessarily want to address your Worship on an application for discharge. It is an application which everyone of us would like to joint in in addressing Your Worship on. So, Sir, when I say that under those circumstances we are not being unreasonable in asking for a postponement for give Jr months, I can only say, Sir, I shudder to think what all Defence Counsel would be like at the end of five months. It is going to be a herculean task for us to do, and I do submit, Sir, that under those circumstances... Realising that the Defence team is not very large, that is having regard to the magnitude of the work to be undertaken, I take it that some of the Accused at any rate would be available to assist in this. BY MR. BERRANGE s I sincerely hope so. But as Your Worship knows, a gre^t dea of this work entails the preparation and formulation of argument, that is - one could break this down into two sections, really. One is the reading of the record, the exhibits, and on that the formulation and preparation of argument. The other part, Sir, is the preparation of the evidence that is to be presented to this Court. You can break it down into two sections. Now, Sir, those Accused persons who could be of assistance, could really only be of assistance I should imagine, in assisting us in taking statements and with perhaps assisting us in reading the record. I can't imagine any of the Accused being able to travel around the country, or even travel around in Johannesburg to take statements from witnesses, or to be present at the taking of statements of witnesses outside the centre of Johannesburg. And

30 indeed, Sir, I make the point that doing this sort of work is work that is a specialised form of undertaking, a specialised type of work in the sense that it is legal work, and again it is specialised type of legal work in the sense that it is legal work of a criminal nature. And there are not too many people who are specialised in that. Sir, for those reasons, I want to associate myself very strongly withthat which Mr. Rosenberg has already addressed Your Worship on. Are you in a position to indicate what other Senior Counsel would be involved? BY MR. ROSENBERG- : I think it would be quite impossible for this case to be presented with the - to Your Worship by the small team you see before you. Y 0 ur Worship will remember, when the proceedings opened, my learned friend Mr. Maisels was here, Mr. Pranks, and it is the intention of the Defence to secure if possible, the assistance of three further Senior Counsel and possibly three or four Junior Counsel. Now I would emphasise the fact, Sir, that all the Senior Counsel and all the Junior Counsel would have to study the record very carefully, because except to the extent that my learned friends, Mr. Berrange and Mr. Coaker may be familiar with the evidence, all the other Counsel, Sir, including myself, would have no knowledge of the record. And we would have to study that carefully. But it would be quite impossible for the present team of three, even assisted by Mr. Slovo, to present this case. BY MR. SLOVO s Sir, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Berrange, and in doing so, I wish to say that I have very carefully weighed my attitude in regard to the application for a lengthy postponement. Because, Sir, I

31 as an Accused person, involved in this preparatory examination for the past nine months, would for obvious reasons, Sir, desire, more than anything else, a speedy and quick end to this enquiry. Your Worship is aware that "both from my own point of view and from the point of view of the vast bulk of the Accused sitting before Your Worship, I would not be exaggerating if I said we have reached the end of our tether in the economic sense of the terms as well as well as in many other senses. And despite, Sir, the very grave personal consequences which will result from a lengthening of this enquiry, from a rather more lengthy adjournment that is suggested by the Crown, I say, Sir, and I say this advisedly that I consider it most essential for the proper conduct of my defence, for the vindication of myself at this stage as I propose doing, for the Defence to be given a proper opportunity, a proper in the real sense of the term, of presenting a case which it has a right to present ih law at this stage. And I wish, Sir, to emphasise the point which has been made by Mr. Rosenberg and that is if I am not given this opportunity to prepare my case, and I say this with respect, to prepare my case properly as I see it, Sir, then I say with respect Sir, that I will be deprived - of an opportunity which the law in normal circumstances assures me, and that is particularly in proceedings of such a protracted nature, to be given at least a quarter of the opportunity, or an eighth of the opportunity which the Crown has had in presenting its case against me, for me to be given an opportunity to present my defence against such case. And therefore, Sir, I would strongly associate myself with what has been said by the other Counsel, and indicate, Sir, that as far as I am concerned, I would require Sir, of course bearing in mind that the case will be presented by other Counsel concerned that I will in a sense present a case only on behalf of myself, I would require a period of at least four months.

32 The last additional reason which I wish to place before Your "'orship is connected with a statement I made that most of the Accused, including myself have been ruined economically. It would require Sir, before one can even turn one's attention properly to a conduct of the Defence at this preparatory examination, for a period of three four or five weeks to elapse in order for the majority of the Accused here, to turn their minds to some of their personal affairs, to turn their minds to fiaing aspects of their life economically and in other senses which they hove not h:;d an opportunity of attending to in this protracted examination. I say, Sir, that is only human. One cannot expect Counsel in this case, one cannot expect me in this case, to immediately after our adjournment to day, without attending to anything else, start immediately preparing the details of the defence. And that I place before Your Worship as an additional reasonvtoich affects me as an accused, which should move Your Worship to grant the lengthy adjournment asked for. You are appearing, Mr. Coaker, with Mr. Rosenberg, I take it. BY MR. COAKER : That is so, Sir, I have nothing to add to which my learned leader has already said to Your Worship. BY THE P.P. : As I see the position that the grounds put forward by the Defence are all good grounds, :reparato ry to a trial, and not to a preparatory examination. A preparatory examination is an enquirey, a preliminary enquiry to decide or to determine the issues to be decided on at the trial, and evidence led by the Defence at this stage cannot put Your Worship in a position to decide the truth of two versions that are placed before Your Worship. One Your Worship has to decide on the truth on

33 various versions at the preparatory examination. It is a matter to go to a jury. I think if it is a matter to go to a jury, it is a matter to go to trial. I don't know whether that approach is the proper one, Mr. Prosecutor. It has frequently happened in preparatory examinations that the Court on hearing all the evidence for the Crown and the Defence has had to discharged the Accused. BY THE P.P. : ^f there is no case. But it is possible sometimes only to be able to decide that if evidence is led by the D efence as well. The way you approach this question now is possibly to exclude the Defence from placing evidence before the Court. BY THE P.P. s Not at all. If your view is correct, there is no sense in placing evidence before the Court. BY THE P.P. : They can - well, I iidn't want to sa^ so in so many words, but the position is - if we take the position of Professor Murray. If another expert comes here and gives evidence contradictory to Professor Murray, then Your Worship with all due respect cannot decide who is telling the truth, Professor Murray or the other man. It is a matter to go to a jury. Then the case has to go to trial. It may be that in certain aspects the Court may not be in a position to come to a conclusion as to where the truth lies, but that doesn't follow that such evidence musn't be included from the Defence point of view.

34 BY THE P.P. s No, I appreciate that. It would have to he on the "basis that the Defence is entitled to place the evidence before the Court. It is on that basis that the Court will have to determine what the length of the postponement will have to be. I think your approach is not quite the correct one. BY THE P.P. : The position is this. The Crown - everybody wanted to get to the end of this preparatory examination. Now, the Defence, if they want to place evidence before the Court... BY THE COURT s I may mention that I am just as anxious to see the end of this case, and a lengthy adjournment would make my task more difficult, because certain impressions that are now fresh in my mind, would inevitably fade over a length of time, and I would have to study up aspects of the case that are now clear to me. But that is toe other considerations must decide the question. BY THE P.P. s But I cannot concede to a postponement of five monthsl It is not only the Court that will be placed in a difficulty, but the Crown will be placed in a difficulty. Then what will happen is this ; That in five months time we resume the second portion of a trial - of a preparatory examination trial how long will that take us? BY THE COURT s What you have in mind now is that the Crown has not concluded its case? BY THE P.P. : Well, first of all the Crown has not concluded its case.

35 What is your stand on that aspect? BY THE P.P. s 11 he only stand that I can take is that it will take the Crown about a fortnight, as I said nine to ten more days, to conclude its evidence. Then an indictment will be presented Now what will be the position if in five months' time the Crown comes and presents an indictment to the Defence. Will the Defence then ask for another five months to consider the indictment?, Is your attitude that this is not the proper stage for an application - that a postponement ought to be considered? BY THE P.P. : That is one of the points that the application really is premature, insofar that the Crown has not concluded its evidence, and has not presented the Defence with what they need before they can start on their line of investigation. BY THE COURT 2 X You have in mind the presentment of the indictment? Tr BY THE P.P. : As Y-jur Worship jjleases. And the leading of evidence BY THE COURT s That is the conclusion of the evidence and the presentation of the indictment? BY THE P.P. s Yes. And as regards the hardship that the Accused suffer, with respect I say that any accused person is suffering hardship, whether it be the Accused in this case or the Accused in any other case. My submission therefore to Your Worship is this, that the application for a postponement of five months should not at this stage be granted. It may be reconsidered after the Crown has presented the indictment.

36 BY MR. ROSENBERG s May it please Your Worship. The first natter that I feel that I ought to he able to reply at the conclusion on, is whether the Defence is properly entitled to submit an application for an adjournment at this stage of the proceedings. That point has now been raised as a ground for the objection to the application. BY MR. ROSENBERG- : May, I deal with that. But befoxe I do that, may I b ecause the matter will arise, because if Your Worship comes to the conclusion that you can't deal with it now, but we can deal with it in a month's time, then the same matter will arise then, because we can't be ready in a month. So I would like to deal with the broad argument first, Sir, and then afterwards with this aspect. Now, Sir, my learned friend has adopted this attitude. His attitude, shortly is this. Why worry at the preparatory examination? He says all this is he relevant to the trial and/doesn! t in any way dispute the basis on which we ask for a postponement, but his attitude is that it doesn't arise in a preparatory examination. Now, Sir, there I would, despite my learned friend's experience on a criminal side, join issue. In a preparatory examination involving a serious crarge of irreason, I do submit to Your Worship beyond doubt that the Accused are entitled to present their case and my learned friend is wrong when he approaches this on the narrow basi^, and says, Oh, this is a jury question and Your Worship will be supine in determining whether the evidence of the Accused or the evidence of the Crown is to be accepted. That is fallacious, Sir. Fallacious for the various reasons ; Firstly, Your Worship is n:t supine. Your Worship, under the Section that Your Worship referred my learned friend to, must determine on hearing all the evidence, whether

37 this is a proper case for committal. Secondly, my learned friend is wrong in saying that this is a question of credibility. It is not credibility at all. This case - very little will turn on credibility. As far as I am in this case, Sir, I can assure Your Worship that credibility will fee a minor issue. What is in issue in this case is, is whether looking at the objects of the various organisations and the Congresses, whether they were entitled ih law to carry out their object in the way they did. That is to be determined in the light of all the surrounding circumstances. And my learned friend... Your point is that the major issues would be the one of law. As to whether the crime of high treason has been established. BY MR. ROSENBERG : As Your Worship pleases. Now take Professor Murray. Take my learned friend's fallacious approach. He says that whatever expert I call, it will be a question of credibility between Professor Murray and my opposing expert. But it is quite fallacious. I am not going to call a man who says that Professor Murray is not truthful. My experts - may I indicate a hypothetical case - will be people who are as qualified as Professor Murray, who will say; Having regard to the positive evidence given by the Accused as to what are the purposes and object of these organisations, having regard to the positive evidence which we have had placed before us, we say that this is not communism, that Professor Murray's approach is merely to look at speeches without the objects of the organisation. I am not saying that is correct, Sir, I am merely indicating to Your Worship what the argument is. Then there is the argument of common purpose. There, Your Worship as a matter of law, after hearing all the evidence, would have to determine

38 whether on that evidence the common purpose essential for high treason has "been established. Now therefore my learned friend, and I respect his approach, is wrong in saying this is a matter morefit for the trial and not for the preparatory examination. My learned friend, Sir, may I emphasise the point, does not dispute the validity of the grounds on which I have applied for a lengthy postponement. He does not say, nor could he say, that the Defence in a shorter time could prepare its case. And, Sir, nor does he make out a case of prejudice to the Grown. Your Worship, we are all prejudiced in the sense that we would like a speedy determination of this as Mr. Slovo said, he would like the matter to be ended, but that is not a prejudice which would cause Your Worship, and I weigh my words carefully, cause Your 7/orship muzzle the mouths of those who represent the Accused. That should not be done. Now, Your Worship, I come to the other aspect. If our arguments are correct, and a lengthy postpohement is required, then is my learned friend going to place on the Accused a burden of comihg back within a month, preventing and precluding them from getting work and sustaining themselves, putting the financial burden of 750 on the fund that is supporting them to send some of them back to their residences, the places where they reside. That would be an appaling stating of affairs, Sir. Really appalling. It would be inflicting hardship, and I do submit, Sir, that the Court would be entitled to indicate its view and if the Court, Your Worship, a ter due consideration comes to the conclusion that our request is well founded, then Your Worship meets this technical point by indicating to the Crown that in the absence of any other circumstances to the contrary, and application for five months, or whatever the period of the postponement, or whatever the period granted, and I am certain I would be able to persude my learned friend from this harsh attitude that he has adopted about a month. The Crown would

39 persist in it. BY THE COURT i Mr. Rosenberg, the last point that you made, the hardships which will inevitably be suffered by the Accused persons, those are naturally humane considerations, but are really extraneous to the case, that is to the application before the Court. BY MR. ROSENBERG s Oh yes. persuasive force. I only use that as a - may I say, some Now, Sir, lastly, may I say to the Court, my learned friend has no ground for his apprehension that when we recommence in five months' time the Accused will make any application for any further postponement. My learned friend would be in a position we assume, either now or in a month's time, to frame his indictment, and he can serve it on us as early as he pleases. I can give the Court the assurance thgt there will be no postponement, if Your Worship accedes to our application because of the indictment or the form of the indictment. And we put on record now, Sir, that if the Court accedes to our application, we will go right on until the conclusion of the preparatory examination, without any application foradjournment except possibly for a day or two, the usual routine adjournment. Do I understand that that implies that when the indictment is presented by the Crown, then the Defence would be in a position to argue, and they will be in a position to tender the evidence that it proposes to lead, should the application fora discharge be refused? BY MR. ROSENBERG s Yes, that is so. In other words in five months' time, if Your Worship accedes to my request to postpone for a period to five months hence, the Defence now places on record

40 that it will continue with its argument, the calling of evidence and everything until the conclusion and final decision by Your Worship in this preparatory. My learned friend - I am only replying that he says we will make a further application. That will not arise. BY MR. BERRANGE : I wonder whether I might be permitted to say something further in regard thereto, and I know that my legrned friend Mr. van Niekerk will not take it amiss if I indicate the portion of a private discussion which we had, and I am sure he will concede in regard thereto. When I first approached Mr. van Niekerk in regard to a postponement, I indicated to him, as you have already heard from Mr. Rosenberg, that we would probably require a period of three months. Thereafter, Sir, it has become apparent to us that three months would be much too short to enable us to fulfil our task. However, at that time when I spoke to Mr. van Niekerk about it, this very question of... BY MR. VAN NIEKERK s Excuse me, will you just say when this took place? This discussion. The one a fortnight or three weeks ago? BY MR. BERRANGE 2 ^es, a fortnight or three weeks ago..und at that time the very question of the difficulty that would arise if the Defence was not acquainted with the charges before the postponement took place was discussed between my learned friend for the Crown and myself. I then made the suggestion to him, I asked him at that time, whether he was in a position then or within a very short period of time thereafter, to present the Defence with charges, even though the Crown case had not been concluded. I understood my learned friend to say that they were well advanced with the formulation of the charges and they could present the charges qlmost at any time. "hereupon I sug-

41 gested to him, because my learned friend did not at that stage refuse my request, he said he would consider my request and let me know later on. I then suggested to him that if the Crown was agreable to the request that I was making for a remand, that the Crown could then immediately provide us with these charges, that is even before the Crown had concluded all its evidence, which is now only formal evidence to be led, and on those charges the Defence could then work up its case and prepare its argument. My learned friend gave me to understand that under such circumstances he would be prepared to do so, if they we're agreeable to a postponement. Since the^, of course, my learned friend has considered th^ matter and he has told the Court that he is not agreeable to a postponement. But I still suggest, Sir, that this is a way out of the difficulty, namely that the charges which I understand are ready, be presented to the Defence in advance, on the basis that that is only something on which the Defence is required to work, not on a basis that it is a formal charge in the sense that any objection or any exception or anything of that sort could be taken to these charges, or any points could be taken. But just to enable the Defence to have indicated to it the lines along which it should work in preparing its defence. If on the other hand r not prepared to do that any longer, then, Sir, after all we ourselves have a very shrewd suspicion as to what the n; tare of the case is that is to be presented to - against the Defence when the charges are drawn, and the fact that the charges are not presented, will certainly not prevent us or deter us from preparing our case and formhlating our arguments. And in any event, may I join in giving the assurance given by Mr. Rosenberg that if Your Worship does accede to our request, that no further postponements will be applied for on the resumption of the hearing. There is one further thing I want to suggest...

42 Is there anything you wish to say on this one aspect, that is that the Crown argues that the Defence is not of right entitled to ask for a postponement at this stage of the proceedings? m MR. BERRANGE : I don't see why not, Sir. Because the Defence says to Your Worship this : The Crown is asking for a postponement of a month... ^n other words, the Prosecutor's attitude is this, that at the proper time, that is at the conclusion when the Crown presents any charges, then the Defence is entitled to ask for and get a reasonable postponement to prepare their defence. BY MR. BERRANGE : I don't think that there is any stage, during any proceedings, in a preparatory examination or trial, in which the Defence, or the Crown for that matter, is not entitled to ask the Court to exercise its discretion in granting a postponement. I appreciate that, "but during the leading of evidence for the Crown, for instance, the Crown is entitled to ask for postponements, so would the Defence be Entitled while it is leading its evidence, if there is any hitch, or if the Defence is entitled to time to seek witnesses or to obtain X I evidence, then that is proper. But my feeling at the moment is that this application is not proper at this stage of the hearing. BY MR. BERRANGE : «w ith respect, Sir, I feel that where all the facts are of such a nature as to indicate that on balance of convei

43 nience everybody concerned, that a postponement must be granted, then why should the matter not be dealt with at the present moment? My learned friend for the Crown concedes that the grounds upon which we made our application are good grounds= now starting from that basis, all the Defence is due is this s Grant us the postponement now, because it is more convenient to everybody concerned and it will not prejudice the Crown, grant us the postponement now, that postponement which Your Worship in view of the Crown's submission, will inevitably grant to us in a month's time. I appreciate that line of argument. It is certainly in the interests of both and - both the Defence and the Crown that there should be an co-operation on the aspect, I feel, and it may in the end result in the saving of time. The only point that is of importance is the time that should be allowed the Defence, whether at this stage of the proceedings or at a later stage, in order to do the preparation that it has outlined. I would like to take an adjournment now... BY MR. BERRANGE s Could I, before Your Worship takes the adjournment, just conclude the one point I was wanting to make before Your Worship put this question to me. Before I do so, may I also conclude that which I was going to say in regard to the matter just raised by Your Worship. On the basis that the Crown feels that the Defence grounds are good and that therefore a postponement should be granted of a longer period than a month to enable the Defence to prepare its case and to formulate and present its argument, then I say, Sir, what the Court will have regard to, is the question of convenience to everybody concerned and the question of saving of time, if not the question of saving money. In my respectful submission to Your Worship...

44 BY THE COURT s My difficulty is that I don't think those are v&lid considerations as for as the legal point is concerned. BY MR. BERRANGE : "'"here is no legal point, in my submission, Sir, "because I think that the Crown is entitled, at any tine, once the Defence is leading its evidence, if it has proper cause, proper reason, to get up and ask for a postponement, in the same way that I submit that the Defence woull be entitled to ask for a postponement even while the Crown is leading its evidence. ^ou must concede that the usual thing is for the Crown to conclude its case and then for the Defence to ask. That is the usual procedure. BY MR. BERRANGE : Because, however, of the unusual circumstances that you have here, the fact that you have Accused drawn from all over the country... BY THE COURT s My difficulty is... I appreciate that too - that legally speaking those are not valid considerations. BY MR. BERRANGE s I think so, Sir. I think that any consideration which has in mind the administration ofjustice and fairplay to the Accused and to the Crown, to both parties, is a valid consideration which the Court can give effect to. Surely - I don't want to put my case any higher than that. r erhaps in view of all the facts that have now been placed before the Court, the Defence and the Crown can put their heads together and perhaps arrive at an agreement. I am saying this because of the difficulty I have in - my feeling is

45 this that the application nay not "be a proper one at this stage. BY MR. EERaANGB : I can put it no higher than that which I have already done, that an application can he male at any stage, in my submission to Your Worship, by the Crown or Defence at any stage in the proceedings where there are proper reasons for doing it. There is one further aspect that I do want to throw out as a suggestion, and I regret that I am doing it without consultation with my learned leader and other Counsel here, and that is this As my learned friend for the Crown rightly said, everyone wants to get to the end of this preparatory examination as soon as possible. Now we have been trying to guess and we have been trying to be very conservative in our guesses as to what length of time would be required for the purpose of enabling us to prepare our case and to prepare our argument, and I would, speaking for myself, I hope it will meet with the approval of my colleagues this side of the Bar, I would like to be allowed to suggest that the Court when it goes consider the question of the postponement, assuming the Court would come to the conclusion that give months is not an unreasonable period of time, regard being had to all the circumstances, the Defence, if it finds that it is ready bgfore then, because of some or other happening, or because it finds that things are going more quickly, would be, I should imagine, perfectly prepared to come to the Crown, ap roach the Crown and ask for the remand date to be anticipated. I don't know whether that meets with my learned Senior's approval. That is an undertaking "which I myself would be prepared to give, but I am speaking for myself. Before I adjourn, Mr. Sluvo, is there anything you wish to add?

46 BY MR. SLOYO : I have nothing to add. I associate myself with the argument. (Accused No. 118 and Accused No. 20 who were in default this morning, arrived during the morning). COURT ADJOURNS. COURT RESUMES : BY THE COURT 2 I should like to indicate that I am entirely in agreement with the Crown and the Defence that good and valid reasons for a postponement have been submitted. The only difficulty that I had, as I indicated was, whether the application is a proper one at this stage of the proceedings. I am however not entirely in agreement with the Defence with the time that they should have for preparing their Defence and argument ought to be give months. I have given consideration to this aspect and the time that I had in mind was three months. I think that when the preparation of the Defence case is put in hand, with different teams working, the time could be reduced. That is when they work simultaneously, the time could be reduced. BY MR. ROSENBERG : May it please Your Worship, we are indebted to Your Worship for the statement made by Your Worship, but with due respect, Sir, the period mentioned by Your Worship would bringiius to about just before the middle of December. In the circumstances, Sir, with the holiday supervening afterwards, may I suggest to Your Worship that there be really no serious prejudice if instead of postponing it to about the middle of December, Your Worship were to do it early in January, because we would have very few working Court.days after the middle of December, and I would submit to Your Worship an adjournment to the first week in January. i

47 BY THE P.P. : I have no objection to that. 7/hat date have you in mind? BY THE P.P. : It will either "be the 6th, the first Monday, or the 13th, the second Monday. That would "be the second Monday in January? The 13th January. If that date is agreed upon, and before I adjourn the proceedings, there is one other aspect and that is those Accused who are absent today, they would not know of this date, and unless they are advised, will the Defence undertake to have those Accused advised so that there is no difficulty when we resume. BY MR. COAKER : 1 will undertake that those Accused who are not in Court today, will be advised either by myself or by the Attorneys for the Defence of the date of which these proceedings are remanded. I should like to make an appeal to the Accused who are here, that should they inevitably be absent on the first day of the reservation of the enquiry, then they ought to timeously get into contact with the Crown or with their Counsel, so that the Court is informed of the position when we resume. BY THE P.P. : 'The re is the question of reporting^ that has been agreed upon between the Crown and the Defence. BY MR. COAKER : I don't know whether Your Worship feels that the one aspect which was left in the air yesterday on that point should also be placed on the record, I don't know whether it

48 is a matter which directly concerns this Court, or whether it rather concerns the Defence and the Crown. The question arose, Your Worship will recollect, of persons who would he travelling, and therefore unable to report on the first Thursday after the adjournment, that is tomorrow. It has now been agreed upon as between the Crown and the Defence that persons in that category are not required to report tomorrow, provided that they report on the ensuing Thursday at the places at which they normally report, and if they are not ' going to report at the place mentioned in their bail bond, then they will inform the Crown by way of a list which will be handed in today, as to where they will in fact be reporting. CASE REMANDED UNTIL MONDAY, 13TH JANUARY, 1958.

49 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.