hard and fast instructions in regard thereto like with gold. In other words there are no instructions to the

Transcription

1 hard and fast instructions in regard thereto like with gold and other things. In other words there are no instructions to the members of the Police in regard to tape recordings that steps should be taken to protect the Accused or the speakers? No, as far as I know. There may be, I don't know! i You aren't aw&re of any? No. So then the protection which is afforded to an Accused person when he is charged with selling milk which has got a little water in it, is not a protection which is given to an Accused person when he is charged with having made a speech which might bring him before the Courts on a charge of high treason for which the capital penalty applies? That is a fair way of putting it? I suppose it is. You su pose it is. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. SLOVO s Your Worship, I propose asking this witness where he was when this recording was being made. It might be one of the questions which the Crown might object to. BY THE P.P. : I object to that. You mean it m^y affect the safeguard that the Crown has built up? I understand those safeguards merely to prevent anybody from knowing what methods the Police employed in making these tape recordings. And that question obviously tends to destroy that safeguard. BY MR. SLOYO : "ne can't test whether he actually saw the speakers or not? If that objection is taken by.the Crown, I obviously

2 can't proceed along that line. I also wish to ask the witness a further question. Before I put it to him, I want to indicate to Your Worship what the question is, and that is a question relating to telephone tapping. I don't know whether that falls within the prohibition served by the Minister of Justice on the Crown. No, this relates entirely to the tape recordings that we are now dealing with. BY THE P.P. : Let me put it fthis way. It all depends. At this moment I have no objection. It all depends on what way the question is framed. BY MS. SLOVO s Your Worship, is it conceivable that the question I wish to put may refer to technical recordings of telephone conversations and in the circumstances I think I would be wasting my time, the Crown would object. I think my learned friend is shaking his head that he would object, so I don't think I will get further with this question. BY MR. COAKZR : There is only one question I wish to put, and again I think I should outline to Your Worship what it is before I put it. I wish to ask the witness whether he was inside the Regent Cinema in which this conference was takning place throughout the time that speeches were being made. BY THE P.P. s In my submission, Your Worship, it is more or less the same question put by my learned friend Mr. Slovo. Where was he. The question is not the same, actually. BY THE P.P. It may lead up to it, where he was.

3 But thin of course you c.n object. It must be clear that the question tends to destroy the safeguard given. BY THE P.P. : The Affidavit, Your Worship, is very wide in my submission, 'the facts and circumstances relating to'... BY THE COURT s The circumstances relating to the tape recording,... BY THE P.P. : 'The method', 'method^, So if a question, by itself perhaps an innocent question, which I don't admit in this case is an innocent question, may lead up to a fact not permitted to be asked or to be put. That I think should also be protected. It places me in a difficult position. I don't want to.,, BY THE COURT s Mr Coakar, it is difficult for the Court to come to a decision on one question like that. Once we start investigating on those lines» there is always the danger of the safeguard being destroyed. BY MR. COAKEH s If that is so, perhaps Your Worship will disallow my question. I won't press the matter. BY THE P.P. : Well, I'll assist. I object to that question. BY THE COURT 5 I think the question is perhaps on dangerous ground, and ought to be disallowed. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. NO RE-EXAMINATION. BY THE P.P. : The next witness, Detective-Sergeant VI ok, is going to

4 testify in respect of five meetings, and I hand in five Affidavits by the Minister, EXHIBITS G, 1072 to G These five Affidavits are identical to Exhibit G., 1056, except that the places mentioned and the names of th~ organisations specified are different. (J.J. Mollentzie, Int. #ng,/afr,) JCHANNES HERONIMUS VLOK. verklaar onder eed; VERHOOR DEUH DIE?,A t s U het reeds getuienis gegee? Ja, ek hat. Op die lie De&enber 1955, het u n vergadering by die Parade, Kaapstad, bygewoon? - Ek het. Watter vergadering was dit?. Dit» was *n vergadering van $he Congress of the People, Was daar verskillende sprckers daay? Ja, Het u die toesprake vasgele op -n band? Ek het. Het u die band hier voor die Ho? Ek het. Ja, ek het, U handig dit nou in? BEWYSSTUK G # IO77? Ja, Het u 00k n oorskrif gemaak van die bandopname? Het u dit voor u? Ek hex. En jy handig dit in BEWYSSTUK G. 1078? Bo-aan die oorskrif staan 'Vergadering, Congress of the People, Parade, Kaapstad'?. En*3.30 tot 5.15 n.m '? Kom dit op die bandopname voor of nie? Nie op die band nie. Is dit u eie aanhef?. Daar koin 00k name van persone voor op die oorskrif? Kom die name op die bandopname voor? Nie almal nie. Sommige van hulle was aangemeld. Het u die name dan self op die oorskrif geplaas? Die name van die sprekers?

5 Wie was die eerste spreker? Die eerste sprekar was John Mtini. Is hy ^en van die Beskuldigdes? (91). Het u ook die sprekers gesien? Die tweede spreker? Die tweede spreker is David Mgugunyeka. Is hy een van die Beskuldigdes? (87). Die volgcnde spreker? Die volgende spreker was weer John Mtini. En na hom? Na hom? Na hom? Na hom? En dan? Na hom? Na hom? Na hom het J. Ngulube. Weor J. Mtini. B. Gosschalk. John Mtini. A. Hurzuk. John Mtini. Alex Laguma. Een van die Beskuldigdes? Ja, (85)» Na hom? John Mtini. En hy was die laaste spreker? U dui aan op die oorskrif watter taal die persone gepraat het? Is dit reg? U dui ook aan waar daar n tolk gewees het? Y/aar -n spreker in die Bantoetaal gepraat het, Nature lie taal, en da; r n vertaling was na Engels, watter weergawe gee u op die oorskrif? Die Engelse weergawe. Dit is die tolk s'n, in ander woorde? Op die 4e Maart 1956, het u -n vergadering bygewoon by die Parade, Kaapstad? Watter vergadering was dit? 'n Vergadering van The South African Congress of Trade Unions. En net soos in die vorige geval, kon u die sprekers sien? En het u -n bandopname geneem van die toesprake en

6 werrigtinge daar? - En yi handig nou die bandopname in? BEWYSSTUK G. 1079? En het u n oorskrif van die bandopname gemaak?. En u het nou die oorskrif voor u? Jy handig dit in BEWYSSTUK G. 1080? Op die oorskrif kom weer -n aanhef voor, is dit reg? Dit is u eie wat u daaj geplaas het? Dit kom nie op die bandopname voor nie? Nee. Daar kom 00k die - die name van sprekers kom 00k voor op die oorskfif? Die het u 00k self daar geplaas. Dit kom nie op die bandopname voor nie? Ja, Gaan net deur die name van die sprekeys en noem hulle? - Die ^-e^s-te spreke^ was C, Sibande. Was hy die Voorsitter? Is hy een van die Beskuldigdes? Nee. En die tweede spreker? Die volgende spreker? Die volgende een? Joe Mahlangu. C. Sibande. Leslie Masina. Een van die Beskuldigdes? Ja (34). Die volgende? G. Sibande, en na hom Leon Levy. Een van die Beskuldigdes? (20) # Dan weer C. Sibande, en dan Reginald September, een van die Beskuldigdes (95). Dan weer C. Sibande, en Elizabeth Mafeking. Die volgende? C. Sibande, dan Pieter Beyleveld. Een van die Beskuldigdes? (6). Die volgende spreker C. Sibande. Dan Benjamin Januarie, daarna C. Sibande en 00k die laaste spreker. 1956? Het u 00k >n vergadering bygewoon op die 13e Maart

7 Watter v^rgadering was dit? Dit was n vergadering van The South African Coloured People's organisation. Kon u weer die sprekers sicn? Ja, En het u -n bandopname gemaak van die toesprake wat daaj- gelewer was? En u handig nou die bandopname in BE"TSSTUK G. L081? En hot u ook -n oorskrif gemaak van die bandopname? U het nou die oorskrif by u en handig dit in, BEWYSSTUK G. 10&3? «. Het u weer op - op die oorskrif kon die aanhef voor 'Vergadering, South African Coloured People's Organisation Parade, Kaapstad f 13 Maayt 19!}6 # 5,50 tot 1 n,m # *? Bit kora nie op die bandopname voor nie?. Nee. Op die oorskrif kom ook die name van die sprekers voor? Ja, Hulle verskyn nie; op die bandopname nie, behalwe waar Langekondig is? Ja, Het u die neoiie van die sprekers op die oorskrif aangebring? Ja, Wie was die voorsitter? - Alex Laguma, Een van die Beskuldigdes? Ja (85). Die volgende spr^ker? M # Mtaba. Die volgende? Alex Laguma, Volgende? «--Bennie Gosschalk, Volgende? «Alex Laguma, Volgende? Volgende? Volgende? Mrs. White. Alex Laguma. Reginald September. Een van die Beskuldigdes? Ja (95). Op 15 April 1956 het u vergadering bygewoon by die Parade, Kaapstad? Ja, ek het.

8 Watter vergadering was dit? - Vergadering van The South African Coloured People's Organisation. En u kon die sprekers sien? Ja, -«Ja, ek het, Het u n bandopname gemaak van die verrigtinge daar? U handig dit nou in? Ja, BEWYSSTUK G, 1083, U het 00k -n oorskrif gemaak van die bandopname? Ja, ek het. En u het dit nou voor u en u handig die oorskrif in, BEWYSSTUK G. 1084? - Ja, Die cianhef op die oorskrif is we^r u eie? - Ja, Die name van die sprekers word aangedui op die oorskrif? Ja, U het dit daar aangebring, en dit kom nie op die bandopname voor nie? Ja, ek het dit aangebring, Sommige van hulle kom nie op die band voor nie, wat nie aangekondig was nie Wie was die voorsitter? Alex Laguma, Een van die beskuldigdes? Ja (85), Die volgende spreker? - Archibald Sibeko, Een van die Beskuldigdes? Ja (94), Die volgende? Alex Laguma, en na hom Mr, Ballinger Die volgende Alex Laguma >=n na hom Leo Lovell. Die volgende? Ale3 Laguma en na hom David Mgugunyeka* Een van die Beskuldigdes? Ja, (87), Dan weer Alex Laguma en dan Ivan Brown, Weer Alex Laguma en dan Mrs, Smith, Weer Laguma en dan Lionel Forman, een van die Beskuldigdes (83). Alex La.guma die volgende, en dan Henry Naude. Dan Alex Laguma, en dan Reginald September, een van die Beskuldigdes (95). Alex Laguma was die laaste spreker. Het u op 26 Junie 1956 het u 77 vergadering op die Parade, Kaapstad, bygewoon? Ek het. Watter vergadering was dit? Vergadering van die

9 African National Congress. Ek kon u die sprekers sien? Ja, ek kon. En het u «n bandopname gemaak van die verrigtinge en toesprake by die vergadering? Ja, ek het. En u handig dit nou in BEWYSSTUK G. 1085? U het ook n oorskrif gemaak van die bandopname? - Ja, ek het een gemaak. U het dit voor u, en u handig dit in BEWYSSTUK G, 1086? U het wear n aanhef op die oorskrif geplaas? Het u ook die name van die sprekers aangebring op die oorskrif? Ja, ek het. Wie was die eeyste spreker? - Joseph Morolong, Een van die Beskuldigdes? (88), Volgende spreker?. D. Mgugunyeka. Een van die Beskuldigdes? Ja (87). En dan? Na hom, weer Joseph Morolong, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. COURT ^DJCURNS. COURT RESUMES ; (Accused No, 7, I, Bokala and 104, J. Jack, are back in Court), JOHANNES HERONIMUS VLOK, under former oath; BY MR. BERRANGE : Mr. Ylok, Sir, has kindly intimated to me that in order to expedite the proceedings, he would be prepared to speak in English, answer my questions in English. I have indicated to him that if he finds the slightest difficulty whatsoever either in understanding my question or in expressing himself, he must say so at once. CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. BERRANGE : Did you personally make this tape recording and operate the tape recording machine? Yes, I did.

10 What happens if after you have made a recording, and perhaps you are playing it back, the tape breaks, as sometimes it does? Yes, it is possible, it does sometimes break. Then what do you do? Then I splice, I mend it. As a matter of fact there are certain mat-rials which are supplied by the companies selling these recordings to enable you to splice? ~ That is corregt. And if the tape does break in that way and you have got to splice it, that doesn't spoil the recording at all? Not at all. You see, you don't cut anything away from the tape you just splice it - put it together again. And if it is skillfully done,.? Then you can't even hear it sometimes. Hear that it has been spliced. These tapes that you use are of course magnetic tapes, aren't they?. That is correct. If you want to erase anything from these tapes, then all you have got to do is put a magnet over the tape and that will erase the,,? «That is one way in which you can do it. ^nd another way in which you can do it, is by putting it onto a machine, and then playing over it? That is correct. If somebody were to say in the course of a speech, words to the following effect s 'If the police shoot at me for no reason, I will shoot the police'. If somebody was to say that it would be possible to cut out a portion of that sentence, wouldn't it? It would be possible, but I wouldn't like to try it. I am not suggesting that you have done it, and I am not suggesting that you wo :ld try. I say it is possible? It is possible. I think you should try and explain. You say you wouldn't like to try it? Why? N:., it would be very diffi-

11 cult to try and cut out a portion in the middle of a sentence without - then you will notion it immediately. Unless you splice the tape the way it broke, in the same position, pux it in the same position, don't cut anything away, that is the only time I think you would be able to... BY MR. BELHuNGB i It could be done in that way? There are other ways in which it could be done too, aye there not? By using two machines, without even breaking the tape? Has that ever occurred to you? I suppose it could be done, I have never tried that. Let me indicate to you how. If somebody wanted to cut out the first part of the sentence, namely 'If the police shoot at me for no reason', if that part of the sentence was to be gut out. then a way in which it coald be done would be by using two machines? «-«That I don*t know. Let me try and indicate to you a means. original tape with the full sentence on it? You have your Yes, You want to take away the first part of that sentence, correct? You put a magnet on the first part of that sentence, which would erase it? Then you take this tape, that portion that has been erased and you play that tape back onto a second machine, and when you come to that part where there is now a gap, a blank, then all you have got to do on the second machine is to cut out the microphone, cut out the recording..? No, that would case a blank on your second tape. You see, if you had wiped out a portion of a sentence and you play it back into another recorder, that portion will remain silent, in other words, it would be the same on the next recording as it was on the first. That is what I am trying to indicate to you. If you

12 played it straight hack, you wo Id have a portion in which there was a silence? You would have a portion which is quiet. Now that portion could be filled in with background noises? No, I don't think that is possible. Why? No, you couldn't. You see, firstly, I just want to explain, you can't see anything on the tape, so you don't know where a sentence starts or where it ends. To erase only a few words, that would be hardly possible. Gome, come. I mean to say I have done it myself. On my own recorder. You have a dial on the machine which indicates how far you have played? If you have a dial it is not true, I mean for a matter of a few inches, it is not true to a few inches. Let us get it \fchis way. You have got your original tape. You put it on the machine and you then come to that portion which you want to cut out? You can stop your machine at will, can't you? -- - You can, yes. Instantaneously, can't you? You can. Then you can eradicate the portion that you want to, as you have already told me? Yes, how far would you go then? You wouldn't know how far to go. You might erase the whole sentence. You can stop it at that and then erase back.,. Yes, all right. Then you can play your machine, come to this part where you want to eradicate it, keep on playing it till you come to the part that you want to stop at, you can make a mark on the tape and then eradicate between those two points, can't you? Yes, I suppose so. You can. Then, having done that, having eradicated the first portion of the sentence, then all you have got to do is to play that recording onto another machine, correct? Yes,

13 When you come to the part that is now a blank, which will cause a pause, then you stop your other machine, and then you play on again, so that you will have no pause at all? It is not possible just to stop your machine - I mean, and make it record from that portion again without causing some interference. Some interference? But there is always interference at a meeting? There are the background noises, you have people coughing as they are in Court now, making noises and that sort of thing. There is always interference? I think the witness has in mind the interference inherent in the tape, not outside interference, but interference inherent on the tape. BY MR. 3ERRANGE : What sort of interference? It you have been recording and switch off your recorder, you can hear it immediately... You can hear a click? Yes, you can hear it immediately. You can hear it on the tape, I am, it has got nothing to do with outside interference. You can hear a click when you switch off your machine, and you can hear a click when you switch on your machine? That is correct. And at the same time at a public meeting there are noises, background noises, people coughing? Then that click might be very easily missed? I don't know. Let me put it to you this way then. The words that I want now to cut out on the example that I have given you, the following words : 'If the police shoot at me for no reason', that doesn't occupy more than a second and a half, or two seconds if you like?

14 To say those words, correct? Now when speakers are talking, they don't go on consecutively, they have pauses inbetween sentences, do they not? That is correct. Pauses sometimes of much longer than two seconds? Don't they? So therefore you have your speech, until you come to the time where you want to cut out two seconds, correct? So you have quietness, you have a blank, a pause for two seconds, and you will find dozens of those pauses in any event in other portions of the speech, won't you? At the end of sentences, won't you? That is correct. So therefore, if you have a pause for two seconds, to allow that portion 'If the police shoot at me for no reason' that two seconds pause will mean nothing, will it? tape will then read 'I will shoot the police 1? And your You will still hear, if you have a vacant piece on your tape, a silent piece on your tape which you wiped out, it has got nothing to do with a background noise, you can still hear it on the tape, you can still hear a little interference on the tape itself, not on the background, because you can hear it very, very clearly. You can hear what? What can you hear? There is a silence? You can hear it very clearly. That... So you can hear the silence? If the people stop speaking at a meeting, you still hear the background noise, the ordinary background noise. Why? In this instance that will be eliminated all together. You will get dead silence? So there would then be nothing to prevent the person

15 who is so inclined to take the tape, to put in some background noises onto the second machine? That I wouldn't like to try and do. Why not? Why? No, I think it is impossible. No, you can't do that. Why can't you? Because it is only a small section. Why can't you have a man having a burst of coughing? You can still hear that on the tape. Once your tape is wiped out, you can hear that and you can distinguish this from any ether noise... You can hear what? You can hear if there is a silent portion on your tape. Now, during that silent portion, assuming the man who is trying to falsify this tape, was to cough - (Mr. Berrange coughs) - like that? I still claim it is impossible to put something in there because then you have to record again, and the minute you record you wipe out anything, now how are you going to get in just that little portion and make background noises, because you have to record again the the minute you have to record you wipe out anything on that tape again. You wipe out the silence? That is correct. Now if you stopped just long enough to oceupy that period of time for which the tape is silent, what then? I still think it is impossible. Are you going on record as saying that it is not possible to falsify tape recordings? I will go so far to say that if you do that yju will definitely be able to hear it on the tape. In every instance? BY THE COURT s I should like to know. The witness has made a point of that. What does one hear when something is wiped off on a

16 tape? It just goes dead silent. Ycu don't hear any background noises, you don't hear,.. Is there a dead silence so far as the background noises is concerned? Dead silence, there is no background noises whatsoever. And on the tape itself? No, on that portion of the tape,.* portion wiped out? Do you hear anything on the tape where there is a portion If you play it back, that/will be dead silent«you won't hear a thing, not background noises, nothing whatsoever. DY ME. BSKPlANGE : I think what you are trying to indicate to His Worship, if I make it clear to the Courts is that because of there being a dead silence and there not being any background noises, the very fact that there is that dead silence would immediately look suspicious. you can hear it. Is that what you say? Yes, but even so, I mean I would like to demonstrate it to you, if you want me to, but then you can hear it for yourselves, what takes place when you wipe out a portion on a tape and you play it back. It is something you can't - it is not the same as if somebody had just stopped speaking. It is something quite different, you can hear... You have this dead silence which you don't get ordinarily on a tape even if the speaker has stopped talking? Yes, but even so, there are so many noises on a tape, especially at a meeting, there are so many background noises... Which you wouldn't have if you eradicated a portion of the tape? That is what you say. And the fact that you don't have those background noises would immediately make a listener suspicious that something has been done? Yes that would be suspicious.

17 That is what you are trying to tell us. Is that so? That is correct. Now then, I an putting it to you, in order to fill in this silence, some noise was to be made, then you would no longer have a silence, would you? If ycu make this noise, if you could record this noise at the place where you have recorded this under the same circumstances, but if you had to use another microphone or ancther place, any other place, then or any other circumstances, it would be quite different. Do you remember reading in the newspapers a little while ago about this Advocate who was tried by his colleagues at Inns Court because of conversations which he had with a notorious criminal by the name of Billy Hill? I don*t e<jolle,t now. Do ycu remember that? I do not recollect. Don't you remember the papers were full of this trial in which this advocate was charged before his colleages at Inns Court and the allegation - in London this was, not here, in London, and the allegation was that he had been having conversations and being very friendly with a notorious criminal by the name of Billy Hill whom he defended on a couple of times, and he was.ultimately struck off? I do not recollect. Ycu don't remember? No. Don't you remember that a few months ago that the papers were recording - our local papers, were recording the outburst of criticism that English papers carried in regard to tape recordings? You remember that? And do you remember that our papers indicated that very well known scientists, and I am referring to one particularly, Mr. Richie-Calder, one of the most prominent scientists

18 in England, had said that there were dozens of ways in which tape recordings cuuld be falsified. Do you remember that? Yes, I do. Are you to go on record as saying that you disagree with this prominent scientists? No, I wouldn't, but I would say this, that an amateur would never be able to falsify cl "tjq, J) *» If you qualify your statement by saying an amateur, then I am prepared to agree with you, because I certainly couldn't, being the amateur that I am. I wasn't talking about amateurs. I am merely putting to you a very simple proposition, that various scientists, and I am particularly now refer ring to Mr. Richie-Cal^r and other scientists, have indicated time.and time again that tape recordings can be falsified? You don*t disagree with that? No, I don't. Do you say that you personally operated the machine which made these tape recordings? Yes, I did. " nd you also say that you attended these meetings at which the tape recordings were made? When you say you 'attended' a meeting, what do you mean by that? I mean that I was present at that meeting. I was at that meeting. One of the crowd, one of the spectators, one of the listeners? One of the crowd. And could you, being one of the crowd, c^uld you personally hear what was being said by the speakers? Yes, I could. Having made your recordings, did you then go to the speakers and offer to play them back to them? No, I didn't. Did you take any steps to go to the speakers and say ; Look, I have taken a tape recording of your speech, I am now going to seal it in your presence with the official police seal

19 No, I didn't. 'That did you in fact do with your tape recordings after you had made them? I marked them. You marked the spools? Yes, I marked the meeting on the spools. Yes, in oth^r words you pasted a piece of paper on the spool and you wrote what meeting it was? On the piece of paper that you pasted on, yes? Yes, and I think on some of the tapes I also announced that this was a meeting held at so-and-so a place. In other words that is to identify..? I identified the particular tape. Then having done that, what did you do with the spool and the tape? Then I start writing it down, make a transcript of it. Do you start there and then? Then I keep it in my office.. No, no. When did you make your transcript? Imme diately after the meeting I made the transcript. The same day? Not the same day, it takes you about a week to make a transcript like this. But when did you start? Immediately after the meeting, well, not the same date probably the following day. Probably the following day? It depends upon when the meeting was. Some the same day. If it happened between one and two, I would start directly after two o'clock. It takes about a week to..? To make a transcript. It depends upon the length of the meeting. BY MR. BERRANG-E : Where were the tapes in the meantime? The tapes were in my office in the meantime. And then when you had made your transcripts, what did you then do with the tapes? The tapes are locked up in the

20 safe. They are locked up, but were they locked up? They were locked up. Locked up in whose safe? In the safe in the Cap^s tain's office. And then what did you do with the tapes thereafter? Thereafter I brought the tapes here personally. Having got them from whom? Having got them from the safe, from the Captain's office, I took them there myself. All this in unsealed condition? In unsealed condition. You know of course that when you have a gold or diamond case and the diamonds or the gold that is found by the police, the procedure then is to seal the exhibits, either the diamonds or the gold, with the police seal in the presence of the accused? That is correct. And those seals are thereafter broken in Court when the exuibits are brought to Court? Again in the presence of the accused? That is right. Why is that done, do you imagine? Well, I suppose to identify the exhibits again. And to..? Why are they sealed in the presence of the accused and why are the seals broken again later on in the presence of the accused? I suppose so that there could be no tampering. It is done in order to protect the accused? Yes, I suppose so. And the same question that I put to the previous witness, you know for instance that when samples are being taken of adulterated milk, the law provides that three samples should be made? One for the Accused, one for the police and so on?

21 That is correct. That is also done to protect the accused, correct? That is correct. But in the case of the ta e recordings, when recordings are made of speeches, which night be used to try a man on a capital charge, no steps are takento protect the accused in the same say? I didn't even know they would be used here. Of course. I am not blaming you, I am just blaming the system, that is all? Yes, I didn't seal them, neither did I,.. You had no instructions, of course? No. I am just putting the gene al principle is that for adulterated milk exceptional care is taken to protect the accused against anybtampering? But in the case of speeches which might lead to the imposition of a capital offence, similar precautions are not taken to protect the accused? Yes, but I still maintain that the tapes that I have here are those that I cook the recordings on. I am not quering it. I am merely pointing out to you that this protection is not available to the accused, because in the same way that you can still maintain this, so could the inspector with a few percentage more water in it, by still saying that he can also maintain that this is the same sample? ^es. And so can the detective in the gold or diamond case by saying that this is the same gold? Ait despite the fact that the detectives are able to say as you are saying that he maintains that these are the same exhibits, nevertheless it has been seen necessary to protect the accused in the manner in which I have indicated in that type of case. That is so, is it not?

22 But not in this type of case? Correct? NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. BY MR. COiiKER : There are, Your Worship, certain questions which I wish to put to the Accused, - to the witness, but I propose to read them out to the Court and to my learned friend, to enable either the Court or my learned friend to disallow them if they seem to ffend against the claim of privilege. It should be made clear to the witness that he should not answer any of these questions until Your Worship has allowed the question. BY THE COURT <; Bo you understand that until the Court has given a ruling as to whether you should reply to these questions, you must remain silent, CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. COAKER : The first question is 'Were you in a vehicle or on foot at this particular meeting? BY THE P.P. : That I object to. BY MR. COAKER : I take it then, Sir, that the question is disallowed. I don't know. Each question will have to be considered on its merits. It is very difficult to take one question at a time and give a decision on that. Don't you think it would be better if you read all the questions that you have in mind, to see how they link up and what effect they may have on the question of privilege. BY THE P.P. : Your Worship, my submission in this case is that I know what the reply will be, and I know the circumstance of the case and I object to that question, if that is replied to.

23 If it affects the circumstances under which the police made the recording, then the question must be disallowed, but taking one question at a time, it is difficult for the Court to come to a decision. BY THE P.P. : I submit, Your Worship, that x our Worship should be guided - unfortunately by me in this case and it cannot be investigated. BY MR. COAKER : Sir, I am not going to press the matter^- I fem rrongoing to argue the matter. If my learned friend has taken i the objection, I will invite Your Worship to overrule the question because I don't want to extract any information from the witness which might be prejudicial to the public interest. I must be guided to some extent at any rate, perhaps entirely by the Prosecutor's objections. Once we start investigating whether a question is admissible or not, we might offend against the privilege that the Crown seeks, and I think I must overrule the question. BY MR. COAKER : The next aquestion I want to put, ^our Worship is : How many members of the Force were present at this meeting? BY THE P.P. : I have no objection to that. BY THE WITNESS s I do not know. BY MR. COAKER : To your knowledge, how many were present? No, I don't know. Were any members of the Force with you? There were other members of the Force present, but I don't know who

24 they were or how many there were. The next question I wish to put is this : How many persons took part or collaborated in operating the recording device, whatever it was, - or shall I say the recording system, whatever it was. Or I would rather frame the question in this manner s How many persons collaborated in the operation of the recording system, whatever it may have been. BY THE P.P. : I object to that. Then the Court disallows the question. BY ME. COAKER : The next question % How many persons collaborated in supplying the names of speakers which appear in the transcript? In other words, the question really amounts to this. Were all the names which appear in the transcript supplied by the witness himself, or were any of them furnished by any other person? BY THE P.P. : No objection. BY THE COURT s I think we will put it this way. How did you get the names of speakers appearing on your transcript? I know them personally. I know the people personally. I knew all the speakers personally, with the exception of probably one or two. BY MR. COAKER : n ow well do you know Leon Levy? Not very well, I surmise (?) that I saw him at the meeting. Did you know him at that time? I did not know him at that time.

25 BY MR. CQAKEFi : Have you ever seen Norman Levy? I don't recollect. You can't say whether there is any sort of physical resemblance between Leon Levy and Norman Levy for example? No, unless I saw them. The next question I want to put, which is on a slightly different aspect of the matter is this s Lid you make use of any written notes for the purpose of filling in the names which appear in the transcript? Yes, I did. BY THE COURT s I think you were told not to reply to questions until there is a ruling? I am sorry. Did you make use of written notes to fill in the names on your transcript? Yes, I did. BY THE P.P. : I have no objection. BY MR. COAKER : Where are these notes? ' I destroyed them after I had made the transcripts. Were they all your own notes, or were some of them notes prepared by other persons? BY THE P.P. : I have no objection to that. BY THE WITNESS : They were all my own notes. BY MR. COCKER s And you no longer have any notes which you used in connection with any of the transcripts which you handed in to this Court? No, I have none of the notes. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. BY MR. SLOVO : Your Worship, I have a number of questions to ask, but I don't think I shall waste the Court's time. I don't think

26 i Mr. van der Walt would let me ask those questions, so I won't even put them. NO RE-EXAMINATION. I would just like to have clarity on this one aspect. The witness says that he knew all the speakers with the exception of one or two. I don't know whether the Crown is leading other evidence, it will become important then to know which the exceptions are. BY THE F.P. : I don't think he is able to tell, but in any case, most of them were announced. You mean that would appear from the tape recording? Is that correct? That is correct. Most of the people were announced at these meetings. Have you ever yourself experimented with the falsifying of tape recordings? No, I haven't. So you have no experience? No experience. But I know what the difficulties are - what the difficulties would be to oversome. Unless you have experimented them I am afraid you can't appreciate all the difficulties? Not all the difficulties. Yes, I did. You say that you personally heard the speakers? At the time that you made your transcrijjt, what recollection did you have of the speeches? They were still fresh in my mind. Were you able to make comparisons with what you recollected and with what you transcribed? No, I didn't make notes of the speeches... I an not talking about notes. I am talking about

27 your mental notes, your recollection? Yes, I did - I even - I can identify the voices, I know the voices on the tape, they sound the same as those... I am talking about the actual speeches. SJould you mentally compare it with your recollection? With what was recorded? At the time that you made the transcription? (J.J. Mollentzie, Int. Eng./Afr.) Mj,I\THINUS BEKKER DIEDERIKS, verklaar onder eed; P.P. ADDRESSES COURT : He is going to give evidence in respect of a meeting held on the 22nd November, 1956, and I also hand in an Affidavit, Exhibit G in respect of that meeting, similar or identical to Exhibit G. 1056, that is the Affidavit by the Minister, except the places and th~ names of the organisations are different. YERHOOR DEUR DIE P.A. : Het u al getuienis gegee in die saak of nie? Nog nie. Jy is <n Speurder Sersant, Suid-Afrikaanse Polisie by The Greys, Johannesburg? Op die 22e November 1956, het u bandopname gemaak? Is dit van toesprake en verrigtinge? Van wp,t? Van -n vergadering gehou in Weststraat 37? Johannesburg, die kantore van die A.N.C. en die Transvaal Indian Congress. Is that the African National Congress? H handig nou die bandopname in, 3EWYSSTUK G. 1088? Het u -n oorskrif gemaak van die bandopname? Net van die Engels - waar die persone in Engels ge-

28 praat het, net daarvan het u n persoanlike bandopname gemaak? Jammer, ti oorskrif? Het -n ander persoon u gehelp - het u -n ander perso n gekry om ook n oorskrif te maak? Naturelle Speurder - wat is sy naam? Daniel. En sy tvveede naam, weet u? Nee. U handig in die oorskrif wat u self gemaak het, BEWYSSTUK G. 1089? - Was u teenwoordig toe Naturelle Speurder Daniel die oorskrif gemaak het? U het die opnamemasjien gewerk - gespeel terwyl hy die oorskrif gemaak het? Ek het. BY MR. 3ERRANGE : U verwys nou na die oorskrif... Isn't my learned friend coming close to infringing the terms of the Affidavit which he himself has put in? It seems to me that my learned friend is leading evidence from this witness as to the method in which this recording was made? I think these facts were really after the events, after the police had taken the recording. I don't think that this infringes... BY MR. BERRANGE : I just want to be quite sure that my learned friend doesn't overstep the mark by doing that which he shouldn't do in terms of his own Affidavit. BY THE COURT s I think the Prosecutor will have to watch his step. BY THE P.P. : I agree that the Crown is equally bound by the Affidavit, not only my learned friend, but this is in connection

29 with the transcript. VERHOQR DEUR P.A. HERVAT : U verwys nou na die oorskrif wat u self gemaak het, is dit reg? Bo-aan die oorskrif staan 'Proceedings of a meeting held at No. 37 West Street, Johannesburg' Is dit u eie aanhef of nie? Ja, dit is reg. Dit is reg. Op die oorskrif kom ook in die meeste gevalle die name van sprekers voor? Dit is reg. Waar het u die name vandaan gekry? Ek het die stemme laat uitken. Deur wie? Deur Naturelle Speurder Gladwell, en Naturelle Speurder Douglas. U verwys na die oorskrif, en daarvolgens noem al die name van die sprekers. Die eerste spreker? Moretsele En dan het u tussen hakkies 'Chairman'? Het u dit ook self aangebring 'Chairman'? Weet u of Moretsele een van die Beskuldigdes is? Moretsele is een van die Beskuldigdes. U ken Moretsele nie? Die volgende spreker? Ek ken hom nie. n Onbekende persoon. Ek wil dit net duidelik maak. Sover u aangegaan het was almal onbekend. U het nie geweet wie gepraat het nie? Dit is so. Ja, en dan na die onbekende spreker? Moretsele weer. En daarna? Weer -n onbekende persoon. Die volgende spreker? Weer n onbekende persoon. En dan daarna? En daarna? Ek het dit gemerk 'Chairman'. Nkadimeng. Daarna? Daarna? Weer 'Chairman'. Resha.

30 Die volgende? E. Mathole. Die volgende? Dan weer 'Chairman'. Dan 'Unknown speaker'. Dan 'Chairman*. Dan R. Itesha. Dan Shope. Dan Chairman". Dan 'Secretary Women's league'. 'Chairman'. Dit is almal. Jy het reeds gese Daniel het ook gehelp met die oorskrif? Wat het hy gedoen? Hy het vertalings gedoen. Vertalings van watter tale? Sepedi en Xosa. Na? Engels. En het hy sy oorskrif aan u oorhandig? Ek sal die getuie roep, maar vir gemaklikheidshalwe sal ek dit nou n bewye nommer gee. U het dit ook by u? - Ja«BEWYSSTUK G Op bewysstuk G kom ook name van sprekers voor? Daardie sprekers wat daar aangewys word, hoekom is hulle name daar? Dit is - die stemme is aan my uitgeken. Deur die selfde twee getuie? Deur Gladwell en Douglas, ja. GEEN VERDURE VRAE NIE. CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. 3ERRANGE : I am not going to ask you what sort of tape recording you had, because that might offend against the Minister's fiat? Ek verstaan. But I am going to ask you whether you had a good / machine or a bad machine? n Goeie masjien. Did you take any notes in shorthand or longhand of what was said, at the time it was said? Nee. Do you know whether anybody else did? Nee. Does that mean that you don't know or does that mean that no other notes were taken to your knowledge? Ek is

31 feitlik seker dat geen ander notas geneem was nie. Now this good machine that you had, didn't it break down a few times whilst the recording was being made? Nee - dit is moeilik om te antwoord, aangesien ek die matode mag openbaar. So we are not allowed to have any means of checking the accuracy of your statement,». I don't think you ought to put the question to the witness. That is a matter for the Court to decide. I don't know whether th^re is any objection to Mr. Berrange knowing whether the machine broke down, but it couldn't effect the method,,, BY THE P.P. s If the question is put to him whether his machine did break down, then I have no objection to him answering. But to give an account of why there was either a breakdown, that is something different. I don't know, the question itself seems to be quite harmless. BY MR. BERRANGE s He has already said that this good machine did not break down. No, he objected to answering the question. BY MR. BERRANGE s No, Sir, he said that it didn't break down. "/hat did you say? Did the machine break down? BY MR. BERRANGE : Then it did break down. I understood you to say that it didn't break down. Several times during this meeting?

32 Twee keer. Ek mag verduidelik, die eenkeer was in werklikhciid nic die masji^n nie. The question is confined only to the machine. Did the machine break down? - Dan moet ek s net eenkeer. BY MR. BERRANGE : I wish you would make up your mind. First of all you said it didn't break down at all, then you said ix broke down twice and njw you say it broke down once,,, I don't think he said hat it never broke down. He didn't want to reply. BY MR. BERRANGE : May I have it played back. {RECORDING PLAYED BACK}* (inaudible) if you continue the question, that he wasn't actually replying to you. BY MR. BERRANGE : I only heard the word «NO«. That is all I was interes ted in. However... BY MR. BERRANGE : I don't think it matters very much. I don't think it matters very much. Anyway, you say it broke down once? And originally you said it broke down twice? Why did you say it broke down twice if it only broke down once? Ek het twee onderbrekings gehad. By 'interruptions', do you mean to say that there were two occasions on which your tape was silent and that you were not recording - that the machine was not recording? Dit is so.

33 What period of time did these breaks or interruptions take place? 3k sal dit nie kan ss nie, want al my aandag was daarby gevestig om die fout reg te rnaak. How long were you busy repairing this machine? Ekhet nie... Approximately? - Dit sal moeilik wees om naasteby te You can't even give us an approximation of how long you were busy repairing the broken down good machine? - Nee, An hour? Dit mag omtrent tien minute gewees het, maar ek kan beslis nie seker wees daaromtrent nie. The first time that the tape became silent, was that - on the first occasion that the tape was silent, was that due to a breakdown in the machine or was that due to other causes? r- Nee, dit was n ander onderbreking. That made the tape go silent? Ja, The second time that the machine went silent was the time that you were repairing the machine? Nee. When was the time that you were repairing the machine then? - Tydens die onderbreking. You mean the first interruption? The first interruption was the result of the machine breaking down then? Otherwise you wouldn't be repairing it? Daar was *n onderbreking die eerste keer. Ek sluit daarby in, by die onderbreking, die tyd wat ek geneem het om die te herstel. Die tyd wat ek geneem. That was on the first occasion that the tape was silent? So you were repairing this machine on the first occasion that the tape was shown to be silent? Die fout was die eerste keer nie by die masjien hie. What is the point in repairing the machine if there is nothing wrong with it? Ek het ges ek het die fout

34 herstel. Ek weet nie wat die moeilikheid is nie, mnr. Diederiks, -n Mens sukkel so, regtigwaar. Ek weet nie by wie die fout 1 nie. Daar word so baie vrae gestel om een dingetjie op te los, Kan u nie vir ons s wat gebeur het nie? Was daajr twee verskillende onderbj-ekings met 71 pouse tussen in? Daar was twee gewees? - Nou met watter geleentheid moes u die masjien herstel, die eeyste of tweede? - Ek moes die masjien met die tweede onderbyeking herstel, BY MR. BERRANGE s Just now you told us it was on the first? BY THE P.P. : May I interrupt? I think he was going to explain that he said 'Ek het dia fou^. herstel', I didn't repair the machine. Actually I have noted here 'Tweede keer is toe ek die herstelwerk gedoen het 1. BY THE P.P. t 'Die fout herstel', and I know that my learned friend's question was directed at the machine, but that is what the witness said. BY MR. BERRANGE s Now that just shows you where one gets to with the fiat placed upon proper cross-examination. So then the position now is that the machine broke down on the second occasion on which your tape was silent? Dit is so. On the second occasion? iind you say you took about ten minutes to repair that? Ongeveer, ja. That is what I said, approximately. Now then, you

35 " will agree with me, that the meaning of a speech can be completely altered, unless you have the full context of the speech? Ek dink dit is poontlik. It is not possible, it is true? That which is said can bear a completely false meaning unless you have all that is said? Isn't that so? Ek kan nie daar saamstem nie. BY THE COURT s Do you suggest that the whole speech can be altered? BY MR. BERRANGE : No, no. I am saying that the meaning of which is said can be altered unless one has the whole context. That must be so, I agree with you, It doesn't alter the whole meaning of.the whole speech, not necessarily, BY MR. BERRANGE : Maybe, I am suggesting that it may do. Can'* you agree with me? Let me give you an example You don't agree to what? Dat die betekenis van die hele toespraak kan verander word deur n anderbreking. I don't know whether that is what you have in mind when you put the question, Mr. Berrange. Perhaps you ought to put the question again. BY ME. BERRANGE 2 I had that in mind. I have in mind that the whole of a speech can bear a completely different meaning unless you have the whole speech. That the meaning of a speech, that the meaning of that which was said by a speaker can be completely different unless... That is a matter for argument. It may be in some C3S6S BY MR. BERRANGE s That is why I used the word 'can be'...

36 BY THE COURT. But is doesn't necessarily,,. BY MR. BERRANGE : It is for that very reason that I used the words can be' and I didn't say 'must be'. That is why I was careful in selecting that word, 'can' be. That is all I am saying? - Ja, On the first occasion that your tape was silent owing to some mysterious, unexplained cause, can you tell us for how long the tape was silent on the first occasion? Approximately? - Ek kan dit nie antwoord nie, Dit kan nie help on te faai nie, Not even approximately? Nee, ek kan nie. Have you got any personal recollection of this meeting? - Ja, You remember what happened? Ja, I am not asking you whether you gan remember everything that was said, but you can remember the things that happened there? Ja, And you can't tell us then for what period of time, even approximately, the tape was silent on the first occasion? Soos ek re,ds gess het, dit vat al jou aandag om die fout op te spoor en dit te herstel. Jy kyk nie na n horlosie nie. What fault? DEUR DIE HOE : Die vraag gaan oor die eerste onderbreking, toe het u geen fout herstel nie. Wat is die moeilikheid. Ons wil het west min of meer hoe lank daardie onderbreking was. Was dit vyf minute, tien minute, n half uur, n uur, of hoe lank? By Benadering? - Ek kan dit nie anuwoord nie. BY MR. BERRANGE % Were you there? Die vraag is dubbelsinnig. Ek west nie wat die vraag is nie. Zk het die opname gemaak.

37 DEUR DIE HOP : Die vraag is nie dubbelsinnig nie. A1 wat die Advokaat wil aandui is dat dit snaaks is dat u nie eers 'n idee het hoe lank die onderbreking was nie, Ons wil by benadering n idee hs, ons wil u nie bind nie, BY MR. BERRANGE : May I add, Sir, to the witness for his information, that unless he is going to be a little bit more ccooperative, I'm going to ask the Court to reject the whole of his evidence. I don*t think you should put that to the witness^ That is a matter for argument, Kan u ons nie help nie? U was tog daar? Het dit meer a -n uur of minder as u uur geneem? w*-- Djt was minder as -n uur, BY_MR. BERRANGE : Less than an hour. More than half an hour? - Ja, dit kan -n b-ietjie meer as n halfuur wees. So now we know after this long, long time that the tape was silent on the first occasion for less than an hour and more than h^lf an hour. I should like to put a question here. I don't want to come back to it. Wat was die oorsaak van die eerste onderbreking? Kan u onthou? Ja, BY THE P.P. : Vertel ons? I object to that. I know the circumstances. BY MR. BERRANGE : Everybody is being stopped now, not only the Crown, the Defence, but also Your Worship. Tell me, You have told us that you couldn't identify any of the persons whose names you have mentioned? Ek kan hulle nie uitken nie.

38 What I would like to know from you is, could you see * any of the persons who were talking? Nee, So all you have then was a recording of certain speeches? And later on, two Native Detectives came and told you who had spoken? Ja, dit is reg. And you have already told us that they didn't make any notes? Ek het nie ges hulle het nie notas gemaak nie. Didn't you? Did I not ask you the question whether you had made any notes and after you had answered in the negative, I then asked you whether any member of the Police had made any notes, and you said no? You said : *Ek is feitlik seker dat geen notules gemaak is nie*? Ek het gemeen dat die yr&ag verwys ten tye van die vergadeying. That is exactly what I am putting to you? Daay was ^aardie tyd nie notas gemaak nie. By you or Gladwell oj: Douglas? - Gladwell en Douglas was nie daardie tyd by my nie. So then you being separated from Gladwell and Douglas, made a tape recording, and afterwards these two gentlemen came and told you who had spoken at the meeting? Ja, ek het die opname terug g^speel en hulle het na die stemme geluister. And then they, by listening to the voices, identified the speakers from your recording? They were able to recognise the voices from the recording? And where did this take place? This identification of the voicesfrom the recording? How long after the meeting? In my kantoor. Dit was verlede week wat hulle dit uitgeken het. For the first time? Did you make the transcript of this recording? Was it you who made the transcript? Konstabel Schoeman en ek

39 saam. Die volgende dag. When? Last week? Onmiddellik na die vergadering. Where? In ons kantoor. Who did the typing? Konstabel Schoeman. What did you do with the tape? Ek het dit in veilige bewaring gehou. Lit Le bit - Please be a little bit more co-operative. What did you do with the tape? r- Daar is n staalkabinet in ons kantoor? ek sluit dit daarin toe. How many people use your office? --Omtrent agt. How many people have keys to this cabinet? Net ek. What do you keep in this ca1u.net? LSers* Your files only, or other persons files? Dit ig korrespondensie wat ek alleen mee deel. I want to know whether there are any files kept in this cabinet which are part of the investigation of persons other than yourself?- - Ander persone doen ondersoek in verband daarmee. These particular files, that are kept in your cabinet? Ja, Who are these other persons? All of them, I want to know the names of all of them? Speurder Sorsant Theron, Konstabel Schoeman, Prinsloo - Konstabel Prinsloo, Konstabel Roos, en Sersant Pienaar en Speurder- Hoofkonstabel van Heerden. He is your superior in rank? And if anyone of these gentlemen that you have mentioned wants to take out or peruse a file in this steel cabinet, they come to you for the key? You hand them the key? Ek sluit die kabinet self oop. And you stand by and watch to see what they are doing everytime? Nee, ek kan dit nie se nie.

40 What do you do? Go back to your work? Ja, my work is in die kantoor. Now on the 22nd November, what time did you go on duty? 8.30 in die oggend. What time was this meeting? Vanaf ongeveer How long did the meeting last? - Tot ongeveer 8 uur. Between 4,30 and 8 p,m. were you alone or were you with other persons? Ek wa alleen. Did you see either Gladwell or Douglas between those hours 4,30 and 8? Nee. COURT ADJOURNS. COURT RESUMES : MARTHINUS BEKKER DIEDERICKS. under former oath, CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. COAKER : X take it that you have had some training in the use of sound recording devices? w Net praktiese ondervinding. When did you start getting your practical experience? «Ongeveer twee jaar gelede. Have you had any instruction in the method of using sound recording devices? Ek het net my eie ondervinding. You mjn that you started with hit and miss methods Dit is so. Surely somebody taught you how to use such machinery? - Ek het net my eie ondervinding. I think you might answer my question. at any time show you how to use such instruments? Didn't anybody Ja, ek meen - ek is nie baie seker nie, maar ek meen in a winkel. You mean you don't know who it wastffhoshowed you how to use the machine? - - Nee, ek kan nie onthou nie. Has all your practical experience been in connection with recording the proceedings at public gatherings? and gradually improved by the light of your own unaided intelligence? Ampte-

41 , lik, ja f maar privaat het ek al by funksies - huispartytjies. What do you mean by proceedings? or recitations' or something of that sort? Do you mean plays Have you ever produced a radio play and recorded it? Nee. I am not sure whether my next question does or does not infringe on the privilege claimed, but the question is this Could you hear any part of the proceedings at this meeting whilst they were going on, BY THE P.P. : I have no objection. BY THE WITNESS : Ek k2m alles hoor, behalwe by die onderbrekings. BY MR. COAKER : My next question is this s Could you hear directly. Let us first get this clear. Could you hear the speakers whilst they were speaking? As distinct from the recorded voices of the speakers. I am talking about the physical voices of the speakers? Could you hear the speakers themselves and not their voices as recorded on the machine? Nee, What you co Id hear was recorded material from your tape? - Ja, nie op die band nie. Ek kon dieselfde hoor as wat op die band was. DEUR DIE HOF : Wat kon u hoor? Waar het die klank vandaan gekom? U s u kon nie die sprekers self hoor nie? Wat kon u hoor, waar het die klank vandaan gekom? -Dit is op dieselfde manier voortgebring as die opname op die band, wat ek gehoor het. Waarvan het die klank gekom? Ek kan dit so verduidelik. Ek het nie die sprekers met my ore direk gehoor nie. Ag meneer, help ons dan tog. Waarmea het u die

42 persone hoor praat dan? Ek is bevrees ek sal die metode openbaar. Dit is waarom ek dit terug hou. Dan kan u so gess het in die eerste plek dat dit die metodes sal openbaar wat die polisie aangew,nd het. What is the attitude adopted by the Crown here? BY THE P.P. : I have already indicated that I have no objection to the fact that he could hear, as it was originally framed, the speakers. BY THE COURT That he couldn't directly hear the speakers speak. BY THE P.P. : The meaning that I attach to his evidence is that he couldn't hear it with the naked ear. Yes, he heard it by some other means. He says if he discloses that then the methods adopted will be disclosed. BY THE P.P. : No, I have no objection to that question. DEUR DIE HOF : Sal u dan antwoord hoe het u die sprekers gehoor praat? Met oorfone. BY I'JR. COAKER s Perhaps without disclosing your methods you can reveal to me one further fact about what you could hear. Did the sound which you coild hear through your earphones, emanate from your ribbon - your record, your tape reaording which you have now handed in? My next question is this, and you had better not answer it until it has been allowed. How many persons took part in operating the system which produced the tape which you have now handed in? N e t een persoon, ekself. You of course don't claim to be able to recognise

43 any of the voices which you recorded? Nee. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. SLOVO : You are a member of the Special Branch, I take it? Ek is -n lid van die Veiligheidsstaf, ja. How long have you been in the Police Force altogether? Twintigjaar en ses maande. When did you become a member of the Special Branch? Ek meen dit was vanaf And these gentlemen that you mentioned when Mr. Berrange was asking questions, who keep files in that cabinet, are they all connected with you in the same sort of work as you do? Nee. You gave me to understand when Mr. Coaker was questioning you, that you have on previous occasions recorded at pufclig. meetings? As ek die vraag antwoord sal ek die metode openbaar. Ek doen n beroep op u om -n beslissing. BY THE P.P. : I have no objection to the question in the way it which it is put. BY MR. SLOVO : Have you had any experience at previous public meetings? Have you had experience at recording at private gatherings? methods? I am not going to ask you where, how or the When I talk of private gatherings, of course I mean houses and things like that? Lk het dit nog nie amptelik by privaat huise gedoen nie. Do I understand you to say that you have never recorded officially at any meetings other than public meetings? Ja, ek kan dit so stel.

44 Well, I don't want you to put it that way. I want to know whether that is so? Ek sal dit so stel dat in my amptelike hoedanigheid het ek nog net by publieke vergaderings diens gedoen. (Leave granted to Accused No. Ill, E. Matomela, to be absent this afternoon). I take it that on each occasion before this type of recording is made, you do it as a result of instructions from your superior officers? Do you know are you The only one in Johannesburg who does this, or are there other people in Johannesburg who do the same type of work as you do? Eor the police? Mag ek net vra, verwys dit nie na ander v-rgaderings soos die Minister se verklaring, as ek difc vraag antwoord. THE COURT AND P.P. DISCUSS, You may answer that question? Daar is ander persone wat die selfde werk doen. BY MR. SLOVO : You have told us now that there are other people. Could you tell us who they are? BY THE P.P. s To that I again object on the question of relevancy. Who did it? What has that got to do with the guilt of the Accused? THE: COURT, P.P. and MR. SLOVO DISCUSS RELEVANCY. Will you answer that question? Speurder Hoofkonstabel van Heerden, Konstabel Roos, en Sersant Pienaar. BY MR. SLOVO s Is that all? Dis almal. And do you ever work with some of the shorthand

45 writers in the Police such as Sergeant Coetzee? Nee. And the other shorthand writer van Zyl Schoeman? Ek sou net verduidelik dat hy werk in dieselfde kantoor as ek. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. HERVERHQOR DEUR DIE P.A. s U het vanoggend - ek glo nie dit spruit uit kruisverhoor nie, Edelagbare. hierdie punte op te klaar. name van sprekers gegee? Ek vra verlof van die Hof om net U het vanoggend toe ek u vra die Ja, dis reg. En u het ook gemeld dat die twee speurders, Gladwell Ncai en Douglas Ndaba het aan u die sprekers geidentifiseer deur middel van hul stemme? Ja dit is so. Nou op die oorskrif wat u ingehandig het, het u al die name aangebring soos geidentifise.r deur daardie twee getuies? Nee. Die name van sprekers wat u gewys het op die oorskrif, van waar het u dit gekry? Ek meen dit was Speruder Sersant Moeller wat dit destyds uitgeken het. Destyds? Wat meen u destyds? Ommiddellik nadat die vergadering gehou was. GEEN VERDERE VRAE NIE. RE-CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. BERRANGE : In what way did Mr. Moeller identify these witnesses to you? Ek het die opname teruggespeel, en hy het geluister. So he listened to the recording and then purported to recognise the voices? Hy het 'n paar erken. How many? Ek kan nie nou dit s nie. Ek weet nie. Not all those whose names are on the transcript? Nee. But those that he did identify, he identified be-

46 cause he said he recognis d their voices? NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. (Int. E. Mazwai - Eng./Sesothe). DANIEL MOHLALA, duly sworn; EXAMINED BY THE P.P. : You are a Native Detective Constable stationed - South African Police, stationed at Pretoria? Correct. On the 19th August, 1957, were you here in Johannesburg at The Greys? I was. Was the last witness «- were you with the last witness, Mr. Diederiks? I was. And what did he do? I listened to the dictaphone, and I interpreted to Sergeant Diederiks whilst he wrote. What did you hear? I heard the words that are written on the paper. In what language were they spoken? In Sepedi. Is that the only language that you heard? You interpreted from Sepedi to what language? English. Will you refer to Exhibit G. 1090? Can you identify that? What is it? G is what came out through the dictaphone. And what you interpreted? And the names there of persons, did that come from you, the names of speakers? There was a speech, but names were not mentioned. So you merely interpreted the speeches? That is correct. CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. BERRANGE You didn't identify any of the speakers to the

47 Sergeant? The last witness? No, I did not. At the time that you were asked to dothis translation, was the Sergeant already in possession of the names of the speakers? That I do not know. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. COAKER : When you were listening to the dictaphone, as you pit it, and translating the speeches, who was present besides yourself and the Sergeant, if anyone? Only the two of us, I and the Sergeant. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. BENEDICT NYIMBANA, duly sworn; EXAMINED BY THE P.P. : (E. Mazwai, Int. Eng./Xosa) You have already given evidence? I have. On the 22nd November, 1956, did you keep certain observation duties? I did. And did you make notes? I did. In respect of your observation? And you have your notes now before you? Where did you keep observation? 37, West Street, City. From what time? I got there at 4.30 on the l2nd November, Until when? 7.45 p.m. And what did you see? People entered there. What place? The office of the African National Congress and the Transvaal Indian Congress. Is that at 37 West Street, Johannesburg? Did you write down the names of persons whom you saw entering there? Yes, I did write down the names of

48 other people. What other people? I say I wrote down the names of people who entered. Will you refer to your list and read the names? John Nkadimeng. Is he one of the Accused? (54-). The next one? MotsamaiMpho. Is he one of the Accused? (4-8). Next? Robert Resha. One of the Accused? (63). Yes? Aaron Mahlangu. One of the Accused (24). Yes? Oliver Tambo. One of the Accused (74). Elias Moretsele (46); Leslie Masina, one of tfce Accused,(34); Lionel Morrison, one of the Accused (89). You hand in your pocketbook, EXHIBIT G. 1091? I do. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. BERRANGE : For what purpose do you keep a pocketbook? To keep a diary of the work I do for each day. So as to be able to record important events? That is correct, according to my work. This pocketbook is then initialled at regular intervals by your superior officer? That is correct. And of course it is one of your duties to see to it that there are no alterations in this pocketbook? That is correct. No alterations, I write down what I have observed. And the pocketbook mustn't be tampered with? No. And you have got to start at the beginning of the pocketbook, and work your way progressively Through the pocketbook? That is correct. Without leaving any spaces? You can leave blanks,

49 but it is not supposed to be so. Youhave got to write continuously right through. So, you can leave blanks, but it is not supposed to be so. You are required to write continuously right the way through? Is that what you said? Because it would be dangerous to leave blanks, because it means that later on you coald come and write things into those blanks, wouldn't it? I do not know whether that would be dangerous. You write what you do, what is your work, what you observe in this book. You were at this meeting? I was outside. Whereabouts? I was directly opposite the door. Which side of the street? The Eastern side of the s-treet. So the street was between you and 37 West Street? - Traffic passing through - to and fro? And 37 West Street consists of a building? That is so. It is not a single storey? There are a number of floors? That is correct. That is correct. And people who enter the building from the street can go either onto the first, or the second or any one of the floors? A person can go into the building, either then go to the first floor, second floor or third floor, but the offices of the Congress are in the basement. What is on the first floor, just above the offices of the Congress? What was, at that time? On the ground floor, just above the Congress offices? I do not know, but there were people living on the first floor at the time. I am talking about the ground floor, the offices just above the Congress offices? I do not know what was on the ground floor, but I know there was a way leading onto

50 the ground floor. I take it there was. But I want to know what premises were just above the Congress offices on the ground floor? I do not know. I only know that you get into this building, onto the ground floor, then the offices of the Congress are in the basement. And then at the corner there is a chemist shop. And what is next to the chemist shop? The floor from the chemist, and then the door next to the chemist leads to the office of the Congress. That is what I want to knowl First of all you have a chemist shop at the corner? Then there is a door leading into the building? Then next to that there is another shop? 11 hen there is another door from this door that leads into the offices of the Congress which are -in the basement. And next to that there is another shop, an electrical shop with radios, electrical instruments? That is correct. Tape recorders? I do not know, there are many things there. Electrical things? I do not know. I have seen all things lying about there. But you just told us a moment ago there were electrical things there? You have just told us that? Yes, there is a shop where there are all electrical things, old radiograms, but I do not know these things. Radiograms? Tape recorders? I do not know these things. I only see old things. Perhaps you know that the lessee of that shopis a man by the name of Pienaar? Same name as the gentleman who occupies the last witnesses office together with him? I do not know the European there. I just see Europeans in a shop

51 Collection: 1956 TreasonTrial Collection number: AD1812 PUBLISHER: Publisher:- Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand Location:- Johannesburg 2011 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.