PREPARATORY EXAMINATION

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF JOHANNESBURG HELD IN JOHANNESBURG

IN DIE MAGISTRAATSHOF VIE DIE AFDELING VAN JOHANNESHJRG GE-HOU TE JOHANNESBURG

BEFORE MR.: VOOR MNR. F.C.A. V/ESSELS.

REGINA VERSUS: KQNINGING TEEN: FARRID ADAMS AND OTHERS.

CHARGE: AANKLAG:

HIGH TREASON

FOR THE CROWN: VIR DIE KRCON:

MR. J.C. VAN NIEKERK. MR. LIEBENBERG

FOR THE DEFENCE: VIR DIE VERDEDIGING:

Mr. V.C. BERRANGE MR. COAKER MR. WEINBERG MR. ROSENBERG Q.C. MR. MAISELS Q.C, MR. ZWARENSTEIN

INTERPRETER: TOLK:

PAGES: V O L U M E

o o •

- 6600 ( a ) _

COURT RESUMES 9/8/1957:

MR. QOAKER ADDRESSES COURT:

Position same as on 8/8/1957, save that Accused No, 2, returned to Court Accused No. 7, returned to Court Accused No.82, returned to Court Accused No.99, returned to Court Accused No.130, returned to Court Accused No, 134, absent through illness, Accused No. 153, absent through illness, Accused No. 101, absent through illness, Accused No. 50, returned to Court, Accused No. 95, absent through illness.

LEAVE GRANTED FOR PROCEEDINGS TO CONTINUE;

BY THE P.P.: I have been given a note that Mr, Bernstein, Accused No. 5, was arrested last night under the Location Reg» ulations. He was warned to appear in 'M* Court this morning. The Crown is not prepared to release him from these proceeds; ings but arrangements can be made for this other trial to be heard tomorrow morning — Sa-fcurday mowitxi@j/r' ,

THE COURT: I don't know, if he has to appear today, whe-ther the case shouldn't continue in his absence, until Monday, BY THE P.P.; I have no objection. I was just thinking that ' tomorrow would be a convenient day to dispose of this case; it doesn't seem to be a long one.

BY THE COURT; Well, if he can be here — in the meantime he would have to be excused. You might contact 'M' Court; per-haps his case could be held over until tomorrow. BY THE P.P". ; I will do. that.

BY MR. BERRANGE: So far as Mr. Bernstein is concerned, his attendance in Court at these proceedings is of far greater im-portance than his attendance in the other Court, and he is not applying for leave to be excused from these proceedings. It seems to me that arrangements can perfectly well be made in !M' Court for the matter to be held over. BY THE COURT: Yes, I think that is so. In the meantime do you

- 6601 -

agree that we should continue in his absence? BY MR. BERRANGE: No, Sir, in his presence; he is in Court. BY THE COURT: The arrangements will be made for his excusal from 'M' Court.

SOLOMON MGUBASI, duly sworn, CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

You have had the night to think about the evidence that you gave yesterday, and I would like to find out from you whe-ther there is anything of that which you said yesterday which you want to change, or alter, or qualify ? — I am sorry, I can't understand you.

Do you want to change any of the evidence that you gave yesterday, or are you satisfied with the evidence that you gave yesterday ? — I am satisfied with the evidence I gave yester-day.

You don't want to change it ? — No. Not in any respect at all ? — No. You don't want to qualify it ? — No. You told us that you started your career of crime in 1938,

is that correct ? — Yes. Is it correct that you have never been sentenced for any-

thing of any sort, whatsoever, before 1938, not even fined ? — I don't understand. BY THE COURT: Sentenced to imprisonment, or fined, for any offence, before 1938 ? — No. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

You're sure ? — Yes. I'm sure. Right. Tell me, what decided you in 1938 to embark upon

this career of crime and deception ? — Well, quite clearly I would not be able to remember why.

You don't remember why ? — No. Till then, you were a perfectly honest man, you had never

- 6602 -

done anything wrong ? — I don't remember anything "before 1938. Is it that you don't remember, or is it that you say you

were a perfectly honest man up until 1938 ? — I would say I was an honest man up until 1938.

And you don't remember what suddenly started you on the path of dishonesty ? — No.

Surely that is something you must remember ? — Something that I am not able to remember.

Well, tell us what you were doing in 1937; where were you living and what were you doing ? — I think in 1937 I was at home in Cradock.

For the whole of 1937 ? — I would not be able to know exactly whether the whole of 1937 I was at Cradock.

What ware you doing at your home in Cradock, how were you living ? — I had quite a few jobs in Cradock.

Tell us some, tell us these jobs ? — I would say I .. You would say what ? — I worked in a shop in Cradock dur-

ing that time, but I am not sure. You say you would say that; I know you would say that,

but is it true, that's what I'm interested in; is it a fact ? — Yes, I know for a fact ttyat I worked for a shop but I don't remember

In Cradock ? — Yes, in Cradock. Which shop ? — I was working at Maatskappy shop. That's a funny sort of shop to work at. Is that what the

name of the shop was, Maatskappy shop ? — Yes, called 'Maat-skappy Beperkte Shop1.

How long did you work there ? — I could not really remem-ber how long I worked there. I might have been six months or seven months.

And in 1936 ? — 1936 I was in Transkei. Doing what ? — When I went to my uncle there, I think I

- 6603

was there for about 9 months. Doing what ? — I was not working, I was staying with him. Living on him ? — Yes, I was living there. Not working ? — Not working. Did you do any work in 1936 ? — No.

1935 ? — I could net quite remember. Where were you living ? — I wouldn't quite remember what

I was doing during that time. Where were you living, is my question ? — I wouldn't

remember. And you say you were staying with your uncle in 1936;

where was that ? — That was Transkei. Cofimvaba. So you don't know what happened to you in 1935 ? — No,

I couldn't quite remember. You don't know what you were or where you were living,

or what you were doing. What about 1934 ? — I would really not remember very well.

Well, remember as much as you can please. Where were you living in 1934 ? — I would not be able to answer that question because I couldn't give you a definite

How were you living ? — I don't know. Whc was supporting you ? — I wouldn't know who was sup-

porting me. What about 1933 ? — It would be the same. Where were you living ? — I would not be able to give

an account of 1933. • Where were you "'orking ? — I would not be able to give

an account. And 1932 ? — Also I would not be able to give an

account. You don't know where you were working or living in

1932 ? — No. 1931 ? — It is also the same.

- 6604 -

You wouldn't know where you were working or living ? —

Yea. And 1930 ? — The same. You don't know where you were working or living ? — Yes. 1929 ? — The same. 1928 ? — The same.

1927 ? — The same. 1926 ? — It would be the same. 1925 ? — It would "be the same. 1924 ? — I": would "be the same. So at any rate, one thing is clear, that from 1924 up

until 1935? you have got no idea where you were living or where you were working ? — Yes.

Correct ?-- Yes. And I suppose it is the same so far as 1923 and 1922,

1921 and 1920 are concerned; you can't tell us where you were working or where you were living ? — I would not "be able to tell.

No idea wha^coever ? — No. BY THE COURT: Do I understand from you that you can't say in respect of each specific year, or you can't even tell us for that whole pericd, i.e. from 1920 to 1935 — for the whole of that period, a period of fifteen years, you have no idea where you were ? — I would not be able to remember be-cause during that time I was still growing. Therefore I would not be able to give a full account of that time. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. I-ERR AN GE C0N1D,:

Do you mean you were too young during that time to re-member, is that what you mean ? — I was not very young, but seeing that many years passed I would not be able to recall. BY THE COURT: I put this question because I BY MR. BERRANGE: Yes, I appreciate Your Worship's point.

- 6605 -

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTB.:

What His Worship is trying to find out from you, is this: Are you telling us you can't remember what you were doing in any particular year, or are you telling us that you cannot remember at all where you lived or where you worked or what you did, during the whole period from 1920 to 1935 ? — Yes, I would not be able to give an account.

You couldn't give us any idea of your movements or where you lived, or what you did at any time from 1920 to 1935 ? — No.

Your mind is a blank for those 15 years ? — My mind is V

a blank. I would like you to have a look at this gown — and I

don't want to put it in as an exhibit if I can be allowed not to, because some day on some occasjon I may be able to wear it again; it is my own property. (Gown shown to witness.) Have a look at this gown, and see the pocket at the back, see the stitching at the back, and see the band in the front, see the colour. Put it on. (Witness dons gown) Is that the sort of gown that you wore when you got capped ? — No.

What sort of a gown did you wear a gown when you got capped ? — BY THE COURT: Let us have the one question first; you are assuming that he was capped ? BY MR. BERRANGE: The witness has said so in chief. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONPD.:

Did you wear a gown when you were capped ? — I was never capped.

You were never capped ? — No. You never had a gown ? — No. I once had a gown but That was when you were carrying on your life of decep-

tion ? — Yes. Then you had a very grand gown, didn't you — then you

- 6606 -

had a gown which .. „.. I've got it described here. You then had a gown and a hood ? — Yes,

Broad gold, white with blue satin lining — that looked very grand, didn't it ? — Yes.

Where did you get that gown from ? — I bought it from Hepworths.

You bought it from Hepworths; in order to pretend that you were a M.A. ? — I never had a hood for the M.A.

In order to pretend that you were a M.A. ? — No, I never had a hood for the M.A, I had a hood for the B.Sc.

B.Sc.?— Yes, that was green and black. Tell me, how do you spell 'B.Sc.' — write it down ? —

(Witness writes and hands paper back to Counsel.) Is that capital 'B.S.C.' ? — Yes. (Handed in Exh.G.984) Not Capital 'B( capital 'S1 and a small ' o1 — that's

not the way to do it, is it ? — It is the way I wrote it there.

I know, I asked you how you write the degree down, you write it 'B.S.C.' ? — No, I wrote a capital {Bf and a small ' s' and a

I see, a capital 'B' and a small 's' and a small or a capital ' c' ? — Small :c'.

That is how you ^."ccribe a Bachelor of Science ? — Yes, I will understand,,

Coming back to the gown,you say you weren't capped ?—Yes. When did you get your B.A. ? — I didn't say I had my

B.A. All I said I was reading my B.A. Oh no you didn't. You told us yesterday that you were a

B.A. That is why I've wasted all this time on you. You see, I asked you the first question this morning, if there was anything you wanted to alter, change or qualify in your evi-

- 6607 -

dence, and this is your evidence yesterday. You said you were a prisoner, you said you got three years imprisonment for fraud, you went to Port Hare, that you finished at Fort Hare and that you got your B.A. That's what you said yester-day. Was that true or was that a lie ? — I never said that I obtained it. All I said was I

Please do not contradict me. His Worship's got a note. It is recorded on the machine, Mr. Coaker's got a note, I've got a note, and I'm sure the Prosecutor's got a recollection. Now, if you told the Court yesterday that you finished at Fort Hare, and when you finished that you got your B.A., if you did tell the Court that, would that be true or would that be a lie ? — I would not be able to say that, but all I remember is that I said that I was reading my B.A,

You said nothing of the sort. You said that you finished at Fort Hare and you got your B.A. If you did say that would that be true or would that be a lie ? — That would be untrue. n

It would be untrue, you prefer that, perhaps that's a better word to use. You have never been examined for paranoia have you — do you know what it is; do you know what a para-noic is ? — No, I don't know what is that.

You don't ? — No. Someone who suffers from chronic mental illness with del-

usions of grandeur. Have you ever been examined at all ? — No. Well, tell us, when.... how long were you at Fort Hare

? — I was at Fort Hare for about 4 months. And being at Fort Hare for about 4 months you have the

effrontery to tell the Court yesterday that you finished at Fort Hare — did you say you had finished at Fort Hare ? — I never said that I did.

Did you say you finishedat Fort Hare ? — No. You didn't ? — No. And if it is recorded it is wrongly recorded on the

- 6 6 0 8 -

machine ? — BY THE COURT: I firstly should like to have that played "back. BY MR. BERRANGE: Has Your Worship got a note ? BY THE COURT: No, I haven't got a complete note here. I have recorded: 'I grew up in Cradock, B*A. at Fort Hare.' I didn't write down whether he was reading for the B.A., or whether he had completed it. My impression too is that he had completed it. But if he insists that he didn't say that BY MR. BERRANGE: Perhaps the Prosecution could assist "by indi-cating what is contained in his statement. BY MR. LIEBENBERG (P.P.)s My recollection too is that he said he got the B.A. degree, I understood that was his qualifica-tion. BY MR. BERRANGE: May I say that I am informed that that has "been reported both in the English and the Afrikaans Press. BY THE COURT: I would particularly like this to "be played back. I suppose the belt could be obtained. Because we had difficul-ty yesterday at the commencement in understanding the witness. Perhaps that could be done later in the day. BY MR. BERRANGE: I might just say that Mr. Coaker's note is to the same effect: 'I went to Fort Hare where I got my B.A,' CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE C0NPD.:

What subjects did you study for your B.A„ ? — I was doing Xosa, English, Geography and History.

What were your majors ? — No, I never completed my degree. You never even started it. Who was your lecturer ? — I

was corresponding my B.A. before I went...... Who was your lecturer at Fort Hare ? — In what? In everyone of the subjects that you have mentioned ? —

There was Professor Dent and Professor Chapman before he went t o the army.

What subject — Professor Dent ? — Well, he was mostly in a few subjects which I cannot <,

- 6609 -

What subject did he lecture you in ?—(No reply) What is your answer ? — (No reply) '/hat were the subjects you took; what subjects did you say

you took ? — (No reply) What subjects do you say you took ? — I mentioned a few

subjects. Well, I want to know what they were, because I don't think

you can even remember them now ? — I said that I took English. Yes, what else ? — Geography, history. And you say Mr. Dent was one of your lecturers; would you

be surprised to hear that Mr. Dent was a lecturer in chemistry ? — (No reply)

You're lying, aren't you; you were never at Port Hare, were you ? — I was at Port Hare.

What year ? — (No reply) What year ? — I was at Port Hare in 19 Come on, what, '19...' what ? — If I would just be able

to look at this what-do-you-call here, what Professor Dent, I mean Professor Chapman. . said, I've got the record here, but unfortunately I can't

If you've got any documents to support your statement, then please produce them. I'm not going to stop you from pro-ducing documents if you can support your statement with docu-ments. BY THE COURT: Let us have that; what document have you got

is what here ? — It is a document, that/Professor Chapman said, that is my time in Cradock. I have got it here but now it is taken over to Marshall Square.

Who wrote the document ? — Professor Chapman. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

Did you actually attend lectures at Port Hare ? — *es, I used to attend lectures at Port Hare.

- 6610 -

You did actually attend lectures in person at Fort Hare ? — Yes.

It's not a question of any correspondence course, because you remember mentioning correspondence just now f ? — That is why I said that I was not very long at Port Hare, then I left, because I didn't have enough money to pay for the school.

The school fees ? — Yea; That's just about right, because I want to put it to you

that you never went beyond Std. IV at school, did you ? — No. Does that mean 'yes' — do you agree with me or don't

you ? — I don't agree with you. What Standard did you reach at school ? — I was now doing

my B.A. What Standard did you reach at school ? — Which school do

you mean? Did you go to school ? — Yes, I was. You were in school. Do you know the difference between

a school and a •university ? — Yes. Now, what Standard did you reach in school ? — Std. VI. Why did it take so long to find that out from you ? —

I didn't understand. Why did you ask me which school ? — I wanted to be clear

on the point because I didn't know if you meant secondary or primary.

So you reached Standard VI at school ? — Yes. No more ? — No. That's the highest. Where did you go to school ? — At

the Methodist school in Cradock. Where you reached Standard VI ? — Yes. The next thing that happened you're admitted as an under-

graduate at Fort Hare in order to take your B.A, Is that your evidence ? — No.

- 6611 -

Well, what is your evidence ? — (No reply) BY THE COURT: Did you understand that question ? — I think Mr. Berrange says that from Cradock I went to Fort Hare where I went to "be a under graduate.

Do you say that is not so ? — Yes, because when I left school then I went to Hilltown. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

How old were you when you left school ? — I should have been 15 or 16.

I don't know what you should have been, but what were you — can you remember ? — Yes, but I was still young when I left school.

Having reached, I suggest to you, Std. IV ? — No. All right then, you left school, where did you go to ? —

I went to Hilltown. Where is that ? — At Fort Beaufort. How long did you stay in Hilltown ? —

BY THE COURT; Is that a school ? — Yes.

An institutition ? — Yes. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CCNTD.:

What sort of an institution ? — Hilltown institution. What sort of an institution — not a reformatory ? — No,

I was never in a reformatory. No. Well, what sort of an institution ? — (No reply)

BY THE COURT: Is it a school or college, or what is it ? — A school.

Well, why don't you talk. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR« BERRANGE CONTD.:

A school ? — Yes. And after you'd reached Std. VI at the Methodist School

? — Yes. What did you do at Hilltown ? — It was where I was doing

my first year.

- 6612 -

Your first year in what ? — I was doing my N.P.L., Native

Primary Lower.

How long did you remain at Hilltown ? — For about 18

months. Did you get any degrees or testimonials, or anything else

at Hilltown ? — No, I only have a testimonial for the first year.

For good "behaviour ? — There's nothing wrong that I did. My father died and I left.

This is the one testimonial you didn't laugh when you got ? — Yes. BY THE COURT: What sort of testimonial was it ? — That only testifies that you have done so many subjects, during your first year. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

How old were you when you left Hilltown ? — I could have been 21 or 22 by then.

But you left school at 15 or 16, then you went to Hill-town and you were there for eighteen months. How could you have been 21 or 22 ? — (No reply)

Aren't you living in a world of fantasy; you're imagining all this, aren't you ? — No. It is very difficult to tell quickly about your past history when you are not aware of it.

Have you got a bad memory ? — Yes, I mean I'm not very good in memory.

You don't think you're very good in memory. Well, we'll indicate that later on when we deal with what you said about members of the African National Congress. We'll leave that for a moment. So you were 21 or 22 when you left Hilltown. You left Hilltown because your father died, is that so ? — Yes.

Then what did you do ? — That I would not be able to re-member because

What did you do when you left Hilltown ? — (No reply)

- 6613 -

BY THE COURT; Let us put it this way; what is the first thing you can remember after Hilltown ? — I think I explained that because it was during the time that my father died, and shortly after that I left for Naauwpoort and I came back. GROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE COKED.:

What did you do at Naauwpoort ? — I went to my sister there.

Not working ? — No. How old were you then, when you went to Naauwpoort,

approximately ? — I wouldn't really quite remember. Approximately ? — (No reply) Approximately ? — (I couldn't remember. Were you more than 25 ? — I wouldn't say. What will you say ? — I just can't quite remember very

well. When did you go to Fort Hare ? — (No reply) Don't forget that you've told us that your mind is a com

plete blank between 1920 and 1935; don't forget that you've told us that, will you ? — Yes, I know.

'.Then did you go to Fort Hare ?-- I don't quite remember the year now, but I would be able to produce that certificate.

How old were you when you went to Port Hare ? — I was very old by then.

How old ? — I was over 40. You were over 40 when you went to Fort Hare. So then

you went to Fort Hare in 1948, didn't you ? — It could have been that time,

It must have been, if you are 51 years of age ? — I think it is round about '48 or '49. BY THE COURT: It is 1946, 11 years ago. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

Yes, 1946; would that be correct ? — No, it is about '48, '49.

- 6614 -

Did you get enrolled as a student, were you properly en-

rolled ? — Yes. Pay your fee ? — Yes. Now 1948 is not a long time ago, I want you to tell me

who your lecturers were ? — You see, there was a reason for me to go to Port Hare, it was not actually for the purpose of education.

Not for the purpose of the education ? — Yes, There was another reason for going to Port Hare ? — Yes. What was the other reason ? — (No reply) '/hat was the other reason ? — I wanted to use the name

of Port Hare on the certificate which I had made myself. In order to deceive the public and the world ? — Yes. And that was your reason for going to Fort Hare. In

other words, you were already laying, making a scheme, making a plan, for the purpose of being able to deceive the world and the public, correct ? — Yes.

And you were clever enough to think to yourself, the best way to do this would be to go to Fort Hare fora little time and then 'I could always use that in order to cover up my traces.1 Is that what you were thinking ? — Yes. BY THE COURT: I should like to know what you had in mind; how were you going to use Port Hare. In what way were you going to use your stay at Port Hare ? — I wanted to .... I had then made two certificates, and CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

You wanted what ? — I had then made two certificates, and then I would use those certificates..(inaudible)

Forgery you mean — you would have forged them ? — Yes, if they were forged.

I see, so forgery is another of your little crimes of deception. And you worked that all out beforehand ? — Yes.

- 6615 -

You thought it all out beforehand, and when you were sitting in gaol last month, or two or three months ago, didn't you work out the whole of this scheme which has "brought you to Court today ? — No.

You mentioned the names of two lecturers at Fort Hare, do you remember ? — Yes.

Which was the lecturer you say left Fort Hare to go to the Army ? — Professor Chapman.

He went to fight in the war ? — Yes. In 194-8 ? — No, I said that Professor Chapman was then

also at Fort Hare but I know that he was an ex-soldier. You never said anything of the sort and I want to charac-

terise that statement as being a deliberate falsehood. I asked you who your lecturers were, you gave me the names of two and you said one of them left Fort Hare to go to the army ? — (No reply)

When did you work for Mr. Kaplan ? — Round about 194-7. Not 1948 ? — It should have been because »/hen did you leave ? — I don't know, because I worked

only a few months with him. What year did you leave him ? — It could have been '48

or ' 47. I am not sure . Shall I tell you what your evidence was yesterday. 'When

I got to East London I worked for Mr. Kaplan an attorney. I was an ordinary clerk. I must have left there early in 1948.' Do you want to stick to that evidence, or do you want to change it ? — I will stick to that evidence.

Then you said, after having said that attorneys don't pay as well as hotels — it is the one statement in which I am in agreement with you — you then went to the Woodholme Hotel, you said, and 'I worked there until 1949.' Did you say that yesterday ? — Until 1949?

- 6616 -

Yes — do you want to stick to that or do you want to change it ? — From '47?

After you left Mr. Kaplan, you said you went to the Wood-holme Hotel and worked there until 1949; do you want to stick to that or do you want to change it ? — Yes, I.... it's quite correct.

It is correct ? — Yes. BY THE COURT: I would like to say, according to my notes that I have here "I worked for Mr. Kaplan in East London for 1947, early 1948.' BY MR. BERRANGE: That is when he left. He said 'I must have left there early 1948.' Anyway, the witness has conceded that that is correct. He has conceded now too that after leaving Mr. Kaplan he worked at the Woodholme Hotel -until 1949. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

So what time did you have to go to Fort Hare ? — That is why I said I was there only for a short period "because....

Four months ? — Yes, but my name is on the register; that has been proved.

I'm asking you, four months you were at Fort Hare in 1948 ? — I don't really

Why didn't you mention that yesterday when I was asking you what you did in 1948 ? — (No reply)

Why didn't you mention that yesterday ? — It is very difficult to trace the past history in the way that you are putting questions to me.

I asked you what you did in 1948, what you did in 1947 what you did in 1949, and that is not a long time ago, be-cause you are giving past history about people who are sup-posed to have spoken to you and to whom you are supposed to have spoken in 1951; why did you not mention that you v<ere at Fort Hare in 1948 ? — I should have forgotten.

- 6617 -

Forgotten ? — Yes. Forgotten the places at which you either took your B.A.

or were studying for your B.A. Forgotten the places to which you went — you tell us you have forgotten the places to which you went for the purpose of laying the foundation to embark upon a career of crime; that was your reason for going there, wasn't it ? — Yes.

And you had forgotten that ? — Yes, I forgot. I want to suggest to you, in the same way in which you

have endeavoured to deceive the world about having legal de-grees, about being an advocate, you endeavoured to deceive this Court by trying to give the impression that you were a graduate from Fort Hare, with a B.A. degree — do you agree with that ? — I don't understand you.

Were you trying to deceive the Court, by saying that you had a B.A. degree in the same way that you tried to deceive the world by saying that you had a legal degree — were you ? — Yes, I was deceiving the public by saying that.

And deceiving the Court ? — No, not the Court. Not by saying you had a B.A. ? — No. Again I want to come back to the question which you

have always avoided, but you can't keep on avoiding it indefi-nitely. Who were your lecturers at Fort Hare ? — I wouldn't quite remember because I told you the actual object of me having gone to Fort Hare,

Does that mean that you never attended any lectures; is that what you are trying to say ? — I used to attend.

Who were your lecturers then ? — The names of so many other people, I have forgotten.

Give me the name of one of your lecturers ? — I have now forgotten.

Now, I want to read you a note of some evidence you gave yesterday — my note — and I want to ask you some ques-

- 6618 -

tions about it. This is how my note reads: You said 'When I made a statement at Kimberley....' that is the statement in connection with this case — do you understand me ? — Yes.

'When I made the statement at Kimberley, I was under the impression that it would be used after my trial.' Do you remember saying that ? — Yes.

Was that true ? — Yes, it is quite true. How did you get this impression ? — That is why I said

yesterday that it is very difficult to answer this question No, I'm not asking you the question that I asked you

yesterday; I told His Worship yesterday I wasn't going to ask that question again. BY THE COURT: You must answer the questions put to you. The question is, what gave you the impression that your statement in regard to this case would only be used after your trial in Kimberley? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

May I put the question more directly. Did somebody promise you this. We won't mention any names, but did somebody promise you this ? — No.

Well then, how did you get this impression, that this statement would only be used after your trial ? — I can say that when my trial was on in Kimberley, the statements which were given during my trial.....

You mean at your trial ? — Yes. Was rather very false, against me. As such, I felt that this was nothing but a psycho-logical torture. So I must make means to prove that this evi-dence which has been given against me is false.

At your trial ? — At my trial. Yes, go on ? — I never made an application that I wan-

ted to come here, but I wanted to use that statement before the magistrate; that's why I wrote a letter to the chief magistrate.

- 6619 -

You wanted to use what statement ? — I have given it here.

Your present evidence ? — Yes. You wanted to use your present evidence for the magis-

trate in Kimberley ? — Yes. In order to help you in your Kimberley case ? — (Mo

reply) BY THE COURT: For what purpose did you want to use the state-ment in regard to this case ? — No, the evidence which was given against me in Kimberley was false, it was framed-up evi-dence .

Yes, you've told us so; "but how would the statement that you have made in regard to this case help you ? — It would help me this way, because the people who actually took me to those people who I got the money from, they actually changed the statement now in Court, and I wanted to prove that we have some intimate friendships that were existing previous to this... CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTPo:

I follow. Perhaps I could assist the Court by putting it BY THE COU$T: I don't know exactly what he means. Do you mean that you were intimately associated with the people whom you got the money from in regard to these events that you have related here ? — Yes.

And how did that help you to get the money; did that help you in any way ? — Yes, because those people they regarded methat I was a lawyer, because I was introduced to them as a lawyer. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

You deceived them too ? — Yes. And you deceived the Crown witnesses ? — Yes. And you deceived Lethele about being a lawyer, Dr.

Lethele, didn't you ? — You mean, what «,

• "'.HI

- 6620 -

You deceived Dr. Lethele about "being a lawyer; you represented that you were a lawyer to him ? — Yes, I told him that.

Yes, and you deceived him ? — Yes. And then, having done that, you then went and got some

money on false pretences, or that is what the allegation is, let me put it that way; it is alleged against you at Kimberley that you then went and tried to cash a cheque, with the name of 'Brown' written on the cheque; isn't that so ? — No, the cheque is mine.

I don't say it is not yours, "but that is what the Crown alleges, that you have presented a forged cheque; that is the case against you ? — BY THE COURT: The case at Kimberley, what is it ? — It's fraud.

What is the nature of the fraud ? — During the time when I presented the cheque I had no balance at the bank. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY_MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

And the cheque was signed by,.. the signature on the cheque was the name of 'Brown' wasn't it ? — No, it was my sig-nature .

Not 'Brown: ? — No, All right. Now, you wanted Dr. Lethele and Mrs. Lethele

to give evidence that they had known you for a long time, be-cause that would help you in your case; that's what you are telling us, isn't that so ? — No, that is not what I am telling f W .

Well then, what are you telling us ? — (No reply) What are you telling us ? — That is why..... May I just put it very shortly, I want to get away from

this point; you thought that it would help your case in Kim-berley if you could establish that you have known the L&hele's a long time, and not just met them in 1956; that is the posi-tion ? — No.

- 6621 -

Well then, tell us what the position is, "because that is what I understood it to "be from you. Why do you think it would have helped you in your case in Kimberley to make the statement that you have made in Court today ? — BY THE COURT: Yesterday and today. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.s

Yesterday and today; why do you think it would have helped you in your case at Kimberley to make the statement that you made yesterday and today ? — (No reply)

Come on, what's your answer ? — In that respect I ask defending counsel to put that question aside for the meantime. Because I would not be able to answer it before I completed my trial in Kimberley,

All right, I'll help you. I'll put it aside. I'll put it aside on one condition, that you repeat again to this Court what you have already said. You thought that by making this statement, that you have made in Court today, it would help you in your case in Kimberley; that is correct, is it not ? — No.

Isn't that what you said ? — I made.... Isn't that what you said this morning ? — I made the

statement in order to show the Court that I knew Dr. Lethele before 1956.

And did you think that that wouldhelp you in your case in Kimberley ? — There is something

Answer my question; do you think that that would help you in your case in Kimberley, to be able to show that you knew Dr. Lethele before 1956; would that assist you in your case in Kimberley ? — I would not be able to disclose the fact that that there is something Mrs. Lethele said in Court, and if I was to say that now, it will prejudice me in my trial.

I am not asking you about that at all. I want a simple answer to a simple question. Did you think that it would help

- 6622 -

you in your case in Kimberley to be able to prove that Dr. Lethele knew you before 1956; that can't incriminate you in one little bit ? — That's not only the point.

\

That is my point to which I want an answer; don't tell me whether it's to the point or not. Now, what is your answer; did you or did you not think it would help you in your case in Kimberley to prove that Dr. Lethele knew you before 1956 — did you think so or did you not ? — It is part of the evidence that would have been established in Court.

And it would have helped you ? — Yes, it could have helped me.

That's why you made the statement in this case. Because I want to put it to you that your evidence is a tissue of false-hoods; that in fact you have only known Dr. Lethele since 1956 when you came to visit him, when you introduced yourself as being a graduate holding the degrees of M.A., B.Sc., and Lib. That's what you told him — do you agree ? — I never told him but he saw that registration on my stamp.

You never told him, but you showed him the registration on your stamp, and led him to believe this ? — Yes.

And you showed him your gown, your beautiful gown ? — I didn't show him, but he saw it.

Yes, you allowed him to see it. And then came your case in which you were charged with fraud, and then you say you thought it would help you to be able to show that you knew Dr. Lethele before 1956; so you're in Court today. ? — (No reply)

Now, there's something else I want to ask you about. This is what my note reads of your evidence. You stated; 'I will be able to state my reasons for making a statement ....' that is the statement in this case: '....when I have had the liberty to produce certain documents. I feel if I disclose the reasons it will spoil the proceedings in the case." Do you remember saying that ? — Yes.

- 6623 -

Is it true ? — Yes, it's quite true. Now you say that you feel if you disclose the reasons

it will spoil the proceedings in the case. Which case? This case ? — Yes, this case and also the Kimberley case.

I see, because it would show what your motive is for coming into this witness box and giving evidence; correct ? — No.

Well, then, how will it spoil the proceedings, in the Kimberley case ? — That is why I refused yesterday BY THE COURT: Yes, now in what way will it spoil the Kimberley case if you disclose your reason for giving evidence in this case ? — Because, point 1, there is a memorandum that I drew for the women protesting against the pass-laws in Kimberley. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

When ? — In 1956. In 1956, so how will that spoil the proceedings; every-

body admits that you were in Kimberley in 1956, masquerading as a lawyer; so how will that spoil the proceedings ? — (No reply)

How will the production of this memorandum drawn in 1956 spoil the proceedings, or the non-production of it ? — BY THE COURT: I think you must allow him to complete his state-ment. He said that he drew a memorandum in respect of passes. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

Yes, complete what you wanted to say ? — (No reply) BY THE COURT: What were you going to say about this memorandum that you drew ? — I wanted to prove that the memorandum that I drew I gave it as part of the money which was given to me. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

You gave it as part of the money which was given to you ? — Yes. BY THE COURT: What money are you talking about ? — The money that was given to me in Kimberley.

- 6624 -

By whom ? — Mr. Mr. Sesethe and Mr. Motleka. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

They are the complainants in the case ? — They are the complainants in the case.

I see, so your defence is that the memorandum which you drew, was in payment.... rather, that the money that you received was in payment for your services in drawing a memor-andum ? — Yes.

Your legal services, of course ? — Yes. And how much money was that — I'll tell you, you don!t

need to answer. It was Mr. Motleka and Mr. Sesethe. ? — Yes. Mr. Moteka, the amount of money is £39 and Mr. Sesethe

the amount of money is £23, correct ? — Yes. That is £62 altogether ? — Yes. £62 your charge for legal services for drawing a memo-

randum, that is your defence, correct ? — Yes. BY THE COURT: Mr. Berrange, I just want to sound a warning here

BY MR. BERRANGE: Yes, I don't want to carry it too far. BY THE COURT: You must not go too far. BY MR. BERRANGE: No, I don't want to prejudice the witness. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

But you did say yesterday, as your last reply to my question, that on the facts you are guilty ? — Yes, I said I am guilty.

So is this a faked defence that you want to put up ? — (No reply) BY THE COURT: I don't know whether he appreciates the point. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

Is this a false defence you want to put up ? — BY THE COURT: Let us know first, what do you mean, that you are guilty on the facts. Are you here again, I think it may prejudice the witness.

- 6625 -

BY MR. BERRANGE: I don't want to do anything to prejudice the

witness. BY THE COURT: Perhaps it could be left over. BY MR. BERRANGE: I will leave it on the basis, that this wit-ness wants to be able to produce a memorandum; that's what he meant when he said he wanted to produce certain documents, to show that he drew the memorandum, and that his charge for draw-ing the memorandum is £62, CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BARRANGE CONTD.:

And you want the liberty to be able to produce this document ? — Yes.

Tell me, how long is this memorandum, how many pages ? — It's about three or four pages.

In type, or in handwriting ? — I do it in handwriting, and I gave it to

No, but the memorandum that you want to produce from Port Elizabeth, is that in type or is that in somebody's hand; you say you've got a memorandum there, now I want to know whe-ther that is typed or not ? — If I would answer that now I think that is connected with the Kimberley trial and I am afraid because information will be passed through and this will prejudice my case. I will not be able to answer that ques-tion.

You don't want to answer that ? — Yes. The truth of the matter, I want to put to you, is

that you don't know whether you have got a memorandum there at all; you don't know whether it is in type and you don't know whether it is in handwriting ? —

BY THE COURT: Mr. Berrange, can we leave this issue now. BY MR. BERRANGE: Yes, very well. BY THE COURT: It could be re-opened, if necessary. BY MR. BERRANGE: Yes.

- 6626 -

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.: Now, you have told us how it would spoil the proceed-

ings in the Kimberley case. But you also said to us just now that you feel if you disclose your reasons it will spoil the proceedings in this case. Just tell us how it will spoil the proceedings in this case, or do you want to withdraw that ? — I would ask you to withdraw it.

Do you want to withdraw your statement that it will spoil the proceedings in this case ? — Yes.

That statement wasn't true, was it ? — What statement? When you said it would spoil the proceedings in this

case ? — Which statement are you referring to now? You know what I am referring to, the statement that

you say you would like me to withdraw. You said 'I feel if I disclose the reasons it will spoil the proceedings in the Kimberley case, and also in this case.' Now, I am asking you how will it spoil the proceedings in this case; do you know ? — Well, I think the question is still the same, because if I have to answer that question I will have to tell you why I didn't want to answer you in connection with the Kimberley case.

That question can't implicate you in the Kimberley case. Will it spoil the proceedings in this case ? — BY THE COURT: I think the witness says it is bound up with the Kimberley case, and that is coming back to the same diffi-culty. BY MR. BERRANGE: We have lots of time to keep that difficulty; I'll take it up later. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

I just want to finish up on this note, had you never gone to Kimberley and masqueraded as a lawyer in your gown and with your degrees, and had you never been charged as a result thereof with fraud, you wouldn't be giving evidence here today,

- 6627 -

would you ? — No, I would not have "been giving evidence. One further thing. Is the Crown aware of that, are

the police aware of that ? — About what? That your motive for giving evidence here is in order

to help yourself in the Kimberley case — did you tell them that ? — That is not my motive.

Well, have it your own way ? — That is not my motive at all.

What is your motive ? — That is why I said that, if I would tell you why I am standing here today giving evidence, it will prejudice me over my Kimberley case.

You have told us already that you want to establish in the Kimberley case that you have known Dr. Lethele before 1956. You have told us that, haven't you ? — Yes.

And you have told us that if you could establish that, that will help you in your case; you have told us that, haven't you ? — Yes.

And you have told us that if it hadn't been for the Kimberley case you wouldn't be giving evidence here today; you've told us that too, haven't you ? — Yes.

I see. Have you told the police all that ? — Yes, they know.

They know that ? — Yes. Yesterday, amongst the people that you pointed out,

was Mrs. Lilian Ngoyi; do you remember ? — Yes. And Professor Mathews you pointed out on the second

occasion when you went into the ranks of the Accused; do you remember ? — Yes.

And Yengwa you pointed out at once ? — No, it was also on the second occasion.

That's quite true, yes. And Resha, you pointed out without hesitation ? — I am not sure whether it was on the

- 6628 -

first or second occasion. Anyway, you pointed him out ? — Yes. By the way, do you read newspapers ? — Yes, I do read

newspapers. And I suppose when you were, as you say you were, an

A.N.C. member, you used to read 'New Age' ? — Yes, BY THE P.P.: With respect, Your Worship, I don't know whether that is a fair question. If my learned friend will "bear in mind the dates then I don't think that is a proper question. What I have in mind is that this witness terminated his mem-bership in 1953, when this paper was not in existence. BY MR. BERRANGE; What was the paper before that? BY THE P.P.: Before that one, the 'Advance', before that the 'Guardian', so I don't know which one the witness read. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

Anyway, you have read 'New Age' whether or not you were a member of the A.N.C. ? — Yes, I used to read it.

So after you left the A.N.C., you carried on, you were still interested in reading 'New Age' ? — Very well.

Did you think it was a good paper ? — Yes, I am still very fond of it till today.

And I am sure that you have often received pictures of Mrs. Lilian Ngoyi in 'New Age' too, haven't you ? — Yes, I saw it.

Now, the people you pointed out yesterday, included in the people you pointed out yesterday, were Robert Resha, and you lived with him at some time, didn't you ? — Yes.

And you pointed out Mr. Yengwa, and with him, in so far as he was concerned, you had an office next to him at one time, did you not ? — Yes.

So you had lots of contact with him, and lots of con-tact with Resha ? — Yes.

- 6629 -

Professor Mathews, I will deal with your identifica-tion of him later; you acknowledge that you only pointed him out on the second occasion ? — Yes,

Mrs. Ngoyi, you acknowledge that you have seen her picture in 'New Age' very often; you have just told us that ? — Yes, I saw her picture very often.

Now, the other people that you have mentioned as hav-ing participated in and taken part in various Congress activi-ties, were the following: Mr. Mandela, Mr. Tambo, Dr. Lethele, Dr. Naicker, Sisulu, Mr. Tsume ? — Yes.

And yesterday you weren't able to point out anyone of these six people, were you; in fact, you pointed out Debi Singh as being Dr. Naicker; maybe you don't know that. BY THE COURT: He was not actually asked to point out the people. He said in respect of some of them that he only saw them once or twice. He was not asked to point them out. BY MR. BERRANGE: No, he was asked to point out these various people. BY THE COURT: Not Mandela and Tambo. BY THE P.P.: May I explain, he was asked to point out Dr. Naicker, then he pointed out the wrong person. BY MR. BERRANGE: Debi Singh. BY THE P.P.: But I did not ask him to point out Mandela or Tambo, or Sisulu. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

Dr. Lethele and Tsume you were asked to point out, you remember that ? — Yes.

And you were unable to point him out ? — Yes. Now, the people you pointed out then, were the people

whom you came into contact with, such as Resha and Yengwa, as a result of your having lived with the first and having had an office next door to the second ? — Yes,

- 6 6 3 0 -

Mrs. Ngoyi, you had seen her picture in the news-papers ? — I've seen her personally too.

Yes, hut you have also seen her picture in the news-paper ? — Yes, I saw her picture. The same as Resha.

But so far as Tsume is concerned, you told us yes-terday that you used to make reports to him; do you remember saying that ? — I said that I worked with him.

Do you remember saying that you made reports to him ? — No. BY THE P.P.; To whom? BY MR. BERRANGE; To Tsume? BY THE P.P.: That is not correct. What the witness did say was that he was present when Tsume made reports to Professor Mathews. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.;

I beg your pardon; quite correct. TBume was present when you made reports to Professor Mathews ? — Yes.

And you told us yesterday that when Tsume made a re-port to Professor Mathews about the rioting in Port Elizabeth, you couldn't recall his remarks or his attitude, but you pre-sume that he approved of these riots and that he knew about them ? — Yes.

You said that yesterday ? — Yes. When was this report that Tsume made to Professor

Mathews; shortly after the riots. The riots you told us were in October 1952, you remember ? — Yes.

Now, the report I take it was made shortly after that ? — It should have been, because they usually have weekly meetings.

So it was — I am not binding you to any weeks or anything — it was some time in 1952 ? — Yes.

That Tsume made this report to Professor Mathews

- 6631 -

about the rioting and Mathews appeared, you presume, to approve

of that, correct ? — Yes. By May 1953 quite a long time had passed since the

riots had taken place, not so — six months at least, seven months ? — Yes.

Has anybody suggested to you that you should say Tsume made reports to Professor Mathews about the rioting ? — No*

Nobody suggested it to you ? — No. You saw that yourself ? — Yes. You heard it yourself ? — Yes. You are quite positive about it ? — Yes. And this, you say, was sometime in 1952, some little

time after the rioting ? — Yes. Did you see Professor Mathews often at that time ? —

(No reply) Did you see Professor Mathews often at that time; you

say they used to be weekly reports; did you see him often dur-ing that time ? — No.

How often did you see him, more or less; now and again ? — I think I saw him once or twice.

But the one occasion you remember was when the re-port was made about the riots in Port Elizabeth, and he seemed to approve of it, correct ? — (No reply)

Or do you want to change your evidence ? — I'm not definite about the time when Tsume made the report, but .....

Look, there wouldn't be any point in making a report about the riots in Port Elizabeth, seven or eight months after they took place, would there; that would be nonsensical, wouldn't it ? — Yes.

So therefore the report about the riots must have i

been made within a few weeks after they took place, isn't that so; I'm not binding you down to any particular day, but

- 6632 -

within a short time; otherwise there is no point in the re-port, is there ? — But I don't think Shorty(?) was present there,

But you say it was in 1952, or do you want to change your evidence ? — (No reply,)

Do you want to change your evidence ? — I don't say I want to change my evidence (speaking together) .... sure of the time,

Was it 1952, because that is what you have told us; if you want to change your evidence tell me, I don't mind. You've changed it before, you know ? — No, I didn't want to....

You don't want to change it ..... ? — I don't say I want to change my evidence.

All right ? — I'm not certain about the time when the report was made.

What was the report; tell us what Mr. Tsume told Professor Mathews ? — I only remember I said yesterday the report was about the riots and I don't .....

Tell us what was said about the riots, and tell us how Professor Mathews seemed to approve; what was the report about the riots, first of all ? — I made it clear yesterday to the Crown that I didn't, I don't actually recall what was ac-tually said at the meeting, and I don't actually remember what Professor Mathews said in comment to the riots. But I have made it clear yesterday

What sort of a report was made ? — (No reply) What sort of a report was made ? — I cannot be able

to Was it a report about the riots ? — Yes, I think it

was just a general report about the riots. A general report about the riots, which riots ? —

That took place in October.

- 6633 -

The riots that took place in October ? — Yes,

Telling him about them ? — Yes, I should think so. You should think so. I am going to ask you to think

a bit more. ? — (No reply) Remember you told us this yesterday, that you got

one month in October 1952 ? — Yes. Then you said that after that you came home after

two months of crime in Port Elizabeth ? — Yes. So you got your month in October, then you spent

two months in Port Elizabeth engaged in some crime or another, which we won't worry about, — correct ? — Yes.

And then you went home to Cradock ? — Yes. So you must have got to Cradock early in 1953 ? —

Yes, round about that time. Now, again I am coming back to this point; what

was the report, or what was the nature of the report — I don't even ask you for the words, but I want you to tell His Worship what the nature of the report was that you heard Mr. Tsume make to Professor Mathews about the riots in Port Eliza-beth — tell us something about it, any little thing ? — I don't know how shall I answer you because yesterday I was not able to comment on that question.

Yesterday you were only asked very simple things, as to what Professor Mathews' remarks or attitude was, and you said you couldn't comment upon that, that you presumed he approved of it as he knew about it; correct? You weren't asked at all about commenting upon the report. All you said was that Mr. Tsume made a report. Now, I want to know what the nature of this report was; what did he tell him about the riots, that the riots had taken place ? — I would not be quite clear on this point.

What are you not clear on ? — Whether it was by cor-respondence or whether it was

- 6634 -

Verbally, personally ? — I would not actually be quite clear, but I would be able to answer that question later.

Later ? — Yes. When you've had more time to think ? — No, not when I

get more time to think, when I examine1he books. BY THE COURT; What books ? — The books which I kept for the record.

You mean when you were assistant treasurer to the A.N.C. ? — Yes.

Where are these books ? — I told the Crown about them; I would not be able to disclose in Court now. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.;

Where are these books do you say ? — I would not be able to disclose now, but I.......

Why not ? — I hear BY THE COURT: Has the Crown got possession of these books, or not? BY THE P.P.: That is part of the investigation that still has to be done. That is what I said yesterday, that certain docu-

f.-?

ments and books have still to be found, and on their production further questions will be put to the witness. BY MR. BERRANGE: So it follows that the Crown is not in pos-session of them? BY THE P.P.: No. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

Now, I want to know where these books are ? — I would not be able to answer that question.

Why not ? — Because Do you know where they are ? — Yes, I know where they

are. Then I want an answer to that question; where are they

? — I would make an application that No, I'm getting a bit tired of these applications. I

- 6635 -

am going to ask His Worship to ask you to answer, BY THE COURT: Just a moment, Mr. Berrange ? — I would make an application that the defending counsel should set the question aside meanwhile, until such time that the proper investigation has been made, because if I would be able to disclose now some former sources might be able to remove all the documents and I will be left with no evidence to place before the Court. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

You mean if it became publicly known where the books were, somebody might go and steal them; is that what you are afraid of ? — That is not the point.

Is that what you are afraid of; don't tell me whether it is the point ? — No, that's not my point. BY THE COURT; You did say you are afraid the books might be removed if the place where you have put them is disclosed ?-»-Yes. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

Removed by whom — who are you afraid will remove them ? — I cannot be able to mention any names at present. BY THE COURT: In any case, I think this is a question that will have to be answered. BY MR. BERRANGE: If the witness has any fears, and in protec-tion of my clients, and any allegations that might be made against them or anybody else, I would say, Sir, if it meets with your concurrence, that the witness writes on a piece of paper BY THE P.P.: My learned friend is treading on dangerous ground. If he wants M s information disclosed, and a subsequent search -proves unavailing,, then he will have himself to blame for this. If the witness can be called upon to write down the whereabouts of these documents, and it can be kept in the possession of Your Worship, but not disclosed to anybody, then I will be quite happy.

- 6636 -

BY MR. BERRANGE; Y j. . Tt seems to me that the suggestion is that "both

of us might "be on dangerous grounds, if I understand my learned friend correctly. I think this is a perfectly proper question BY THE COURT: I don't think there is anything wrong with the question, but it may possibly have repercussions. BY MR. BERRANGE: Well, those are repercussions which I am pre-pared to take upon my shoulders.

BY THE COURT: There is no other valid objection to this. BY THE P.P.: No other objection.

BY THE COURT: Yes, you have to answer this question. BY MR. BERRANGE: Ask him to write it down, Sir, for Your Wor-ship's information, and the Crown and defending counsel. BY THE COURT: I don't know whether that will help, if the sec-ret leaks out, who will be held responsible? BY MR. BERRANGE: Then I am perfectly prepared to allow some-body or another to suggest that it leaked out through me, if they want to make such suggestions. That is why I said I am prepared to shoulder that responsibility.

BY THE COURT: No, I think that if the question must be answer-ed, it should be done openly. BY MR. BERRANGE: Very well. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

Well, where are these books ? — Do you allow me to BY THE COURT: Yes, you must answer the question ? — Well, I had some books in Port Elizabeth and in Durban. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

That is very interesting; where ? — (No reply) Where '?— I kept some with Mr. Lokhane out at Lokhane

chambers.

Who is he ? — That's an Indian where I had my office. What books have you got with him ? — I've got some

few documents which I've.

- 6637 -

What hooks; we're talking ahout books now, not docu-ments. What books have you got with Mr. Lokhane ? — I left all my stationery there.

Your stationery ? — Yes. Very interesting. I'm talking about books, and stop

avoiding my question. BY THE COURT; You were talking about books that you kept as assistant secretary for the A.N.C. That is what we are talk-ing about. Where are these books ? — I had some in Durban and I got some in Port Elizabeth.

Some of the books are in Durban — with whom ? — Those are the books I left them with Mr. Lokhane. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.

Those are the books which you kept as assistant-sec-retary ? — Yes.

Those are with Mr. Lokhane ? — Yes. Are there any other books which you kept as assistant

secretary at any other place, or with any other person ? — Yes, I've got some in Port Elizabeth.

Who with ? — With Emily Tyalana. How many books has she got ? — There are a few. How many ? — I would not be able to recall how many. How many has Mr. Lokhane got ? — I would also not be

able to recall. How many have you got altogether ? — They should be

about 6 or 8. Books which you kept in your capacity as assistant

secretary ? — Not only books, together with the documents. I'm talking about books that you kept in your capacity

as assistant-secretary; I've said it to you four times; how many books of that sort have you got ? — Books, it must be three or four. I'm not quite sure.

And of those three or four some are with Mr. Lokhane

- 6638 -

and some are with this other lady ? — Yes. Books that you kept in your capacity as assistant-

secretary ? — Yes. Now then, you say that when Mr. Tsume made a report to

Professor Mathews, regarding the rioting in Port Elizabeth, you are now not certain whether that report was the verbal one or whether it was in writing ? — Yes.

And you won't be certain about that until you have been able to see the books ? — Yes.

Your books will show whether this report about the rioting in Port Elizabeth was made verbally or in writing ? — Yes.

How many reports were made by Mr. Tsume to Professor Mathews about the rioting in Port Elizabeth, that you know about ? — I think it was only one.

Did you ever hear Mr. Tsume speak to Professor Mat-hews andnake a report to him about the rioting ? — That is a question I said I would not be able to

Did you ever hear him, or can't you remember it. I will put my question this way, do you remember Mr. Tsume mak-ing any report to Professor Mathews about this rioting in Port Elizabeth; do you remember it or don't you, without your books ? — No, I would not be able to remember.

So therefore you also cannot remember what Professor Mathews' attitude was, can you ? — No.

And yet you have the effrontery to say to the Court that you presume that he approved of it; that is what you had the presumption to say to the Court yesterday ? — I said that I would not be able to make any comment; I don't know whether.... what did he say, whether he approved of it or not

Oh no, you didn't; you said 'I presume he approved of it' that's what you said. Do you deny saying it ? — I may have said so.

- 6639 -

Was it true if you said so ? — Yes, it could have "been true.

It could have "been true, and it could have he en false ? — Yes, because I said

It could have been false ? — Yes. In fact you have no recollection at all, and you had

no recollection at all yesterday when you gave evidence, of any report having been made by Tsume to Professor Mathews, did you ? — Pardon?

You had no recollection at all, yesterday when you gave evidence, of Professor Mathews having received a report from Mr. Tsume, did you ? — Yes.

Does that mean yes that you did not have any recollec-tion ? — I didn't quite remember very well.

Did you say that to His Worship when the Crown was questioning you ? — I said so, I told them that I don't re-member very well what Professor'Mathews said.

I'm asking do you remember whether Mr. Tsume said anything in making a report, that's what I'm asking you ? — (No reply)

Did you say that to the Crown yesterday — to the Court in answer to the Crown ? — I don't understand this question.

Did you tell His Worship yesterday when the Crown was questioning you, that you cannot remember whether Tsume made a report to Professor Mathews about the rioting in Port Eli-zabeth; did you say that or did you not ? — I said that I...

Please answer my question ? — I said that yesterday.' What did you say yesterday, that you cannot remember

whether Mr. Tsume made a report to Professor Mathews about the rioting; is that what you said yesterday ? — Yes.

I want to tell you that that is untrue. You say that you saw Professor Mathews once or twice during this time ?-r-Yes.

- 6641 -

You also say that Mr. Tsume used to make weekly re-ports ? — Not to him.

Did you not tell His Worship a little hit earlier that Mr. Tsume made weekly reports to Professor Mathews ? — No.

Did you not say that a few moments ago ? — No. '•̂ hen I want to say to you that you did ? — I said

that I would not he able to remember if ..each meeting, because they used to have weekly meetings.

Who used to have weekly meetings ? — The Port Eliza-beth branch used to have weekly meetings.

With Professor Mathews being there ? — I said 'No,' With Mr. Tsume being there ? — Yes, he used to be

there. Where did you see Professor Mathews on these one or

two occasions, during this period ? — I think I once saw him in Port Elizabeth.

Where ? — In New Brighton. Before or after the boycott, the riots, in October ?--

I think it was before the riot. How long before ? — I would not be able to remember. Approximately ? — I would not be able to remember. Did you ever see him after the riots ? — I would not

be sure whether I once saw him after the riots, because then in 1953 I was arrested.

That's what ia worrying you, isn't it; the fact that •r

we've found out that you were arrested. Because I want to put it to you that your statement that Tsume made a report e to Professor Mathews about the rioting in Port Elizabeth is a deliberate falsehood which you told yesterday ? — No.

And shall I tell you why I put it to you that it is a deliberate falsehood; would you like to know ? — Yes.

Because Professor Mathews left the Union of South

- 6641 -

Africa for the United States of America on June 12th, 1952, and didn't return to this country until May 1953, seven months after the rioting, eight months after the rioting ? — (No reply)

Do you deny that ? — No, So it would have "been impossible for any report to "be

made about the rioting to Professor Mathews, if he was in America, wouldn't it ? — It could have been done.

When ? — By correspondence. It would have been impossible for him to have done

this personally, wouldn't it ? — Yes, personally it would have been impossible.

Did you mention yesterday anything about correspondence when you were answering the Crown ? — I said that I was......

Did you answer anything about correspondence, is my question ? — No.

What month was it that you defied ? — October 1952.. You are sure it wasn't September ? — October. Are you sure it was not September is my question ? — I

am not certain whether it was in September or October, It may be one or the other ? — Yes. How many people were in your batch of defiers ? — We

were 18. Where did you board the train ? — Prom Down Station. You got into a first-class compartment ? — Yes, All of you ?-- Yes. And the train travelled to where ? — It was the Gra-

hamstown train. Where did you get out ? — New Brighton. And were the police waiting for you there ? — We found

the police already there. At New Brighton ? — Yes. And then they arrested you ? — Yes.

- 6642 -

Took you to the charge office ? — We resisted arrest. Wasn't the whole object of the Defiance Campaign to

invite arrest ? — (No reply) Wasn't that the object of the Defiance Campaign ? — It

was the object. The object was to invite arrest, not to resist arrest,

isn't that so ? — In some cases they were resisting arrest. Was it the object to invite arrest — was that the ob-

ject of the Defiance Campaign, or do you know so little about the A.N.C. ? — No.

No what ? — The object was not to Make up your mind which word you want ? — To invite

arrest. It was not to invite arrest ? — No, The object of the Defiance Campaign was to resist ar-

rest ? — It was to resist. Well, that just shows me, at any rate, what absolute

rubbish you're talking. Did you go to gaol ? — Yes, How did that come about; for this Defiance, did you go

to gaol ? — Yes. How did that come about ? — (No reply) Did they arrest you ? — Yes, I was arrested. When you got out of the train ? — When we got off from

the train we were arrested. And taken to the charge office ? — Yes. And locked up ? — Yes. Por how long were you locked up ? — We were taken down

the next morning to the New Law Courts. And then what happened at the New Law Courts ? — Our

finger impressions were taken and thereafter we were put be-fore the magistrate.

All on the same day ? — Yes, And then what happened, then you got sentenced ? — Yes,

- 6643 -

"but one man paid the fine "because he got I'm talking about you, you got sentenced ? — Yes. You got one month ?—.Yes. And you were sent to gaol ? — Yes. That is the only time you have been to gaol for defying

? — Yes. And that is the only time you have defied ? — Yes. And it is the only batch of people you have been with

to go and defy ? — No. I thought you said this was the only time you've defied

? — (No reply) Did you not say that a minute ago ? — No, that was not

the only time Did you not say a minute ago that this was the only

time that you have defied ? — I said that for the first time X defied......

Did you say it was the only time you have defied ?—Yes*. Was that true ? — Yes. It was the only time ? — Yes. And you also said the only time you had been to gaol

— that was the only time you had been to gaol for defying, although you may have been to gaol for lots of other things ? — Yes.

Was that true ? — Yes. Now, let's get this quite clear. You embarked upon one

expedition of defying and that is when you got on the train at....what was the name of the station ? — At the Down Station.

You got into a first-class compartment ? — Yes, You found the police waiting for you at New Brighton

? — Yes. They arrested you and you were locked up for the night

? — Yes. The next day you were sentenced to one month's impris-

- 6644 -

onment and you went to gaol ? — Yes. So you were out of action for one month thereafter ?—-

Yes. Now, I want to read you your evidence you gave yester-

day. By the way, you got into the train at 11 p.m., wasn't it ? — Yes.

On the occasion when you defied and were sent to gaol ? — Yes.

Now, then, 'We started the riots by taking tickets on the train at 11 p.m. We got into first-class European com-partments. The police came and we resisted arrest at New Brighton.' Has Your Worship got a note to this?

BY THE COURT: I am trying to find it; I have something. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CO NIP.: . • -

•It was the night the riots started. We stoned the shops at New Brighton and at the bioscope and the manager and

E his wife died at the bioscope.' How could you possibly have,

f Stoned any shops or burnt any bioscope, you, if you were ar-rested as you got out of the train at New Brighton and were taken to the police station and kept there all night ? — (No reply)

Have you any answer ? — Yes. Well, what is it ? — That you are now asking me a ques-

tion when I've explained that I was not arrested for having participated in the riots.

So you did not participate in any riot ? — I did. Did you participate in riots the night that you caught

the train ab 11 o'clock and arrived at New Brighton having travelled in a first-class compartment; did you participate' in riots that night ? — Yes.

How could you have done so if you were in the charge of

- 6645 -

the Police. ? — We were not arrested at the station all of us. You have just told His Worship, and you have told me,

that you were arrested because the police found you at the station and you were taken to the police station ? — When I said that we resisted arrest

Yes, you told us that you were arrested on the station; is that true ? — No.

Not true ? — Yes. I said some of us were arrested..(f Where were you arrested ? — In New Brighton. Where in New Brighton ? — I would not he able to remem-

ber, because we used to be flying about in all New Brighton. When were you arrested ? — That same night. What time ? — It was almost late in the morning. What time ? — I would not be able to remember the

time. Did you not tell His Worship the police were waiting

for you at the station and arrested you ? — I said that we resisted arrest.

I know you did, and you can still be arrested, even if you do resist arrest, Did you not tell his Worship that you were arrested on the station by the police who were waiting for you ? — No.

You didn't say that ? — No. And if that is recorded then it is wrongly recorded ? —

I would say that. Something else that's very interesting. You have tried

to implicate Mr. Tsume by suggesting that he participated in the burning of the bioscope, and in stoning these shops, haven't you ? — Yes.

You and he were together ? — Yes, And yet the man with whom you go about, burning bio-

scopes and rioting, and stoning shops, you are unable to

- 6646 -

identify — is that so ? —

BY THE COURT: Perhaps that is a matter for argument. I just

want to he clear. Tsume is the man he failed to identify?

BY MR. BERRANGE: Yes. And Tsume is the man whom he has met

on numerous other occasions, to which he testified,

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BERRANGE CONTD.:

And you were unable to identify him yesterday ? — Yes,

Even though you and he went burning and looting and

stoning together; you can't identify him. I want to put it

to you that your evidence is a complete fabrication, and you

know it ? — No.

I want to put it to you that you are doing this for the

purpose of helping yourself in your other case ? — No.

And your evidence about Professor Mathews I want to

put to you is also a fabrication, because as you know now, he

was in America; that is another fabrication ? — (No reply)

Were you charged with resisting arrest ? — Yes.

Were you charged with rioting, burning the shops,

arson ? — No, Now, I have already suggested to you this morning that

notonly have you spent your life putting on an act for the pub lie, by pretending to be something other than what you are, but I have also suggested to you that you have been putting on an act in this Court, by pretending to be something other than what you are; do you remember my suggesting that to you ? — Yes.

Now, before we go on with this aspect I should like, as Your Worship has called for it, this witness' evidence in regard to his statement that he was a Bachelor of Arts to be played over to him. PLAYBACK:

- 6647 -

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. B3RRANGS CONTD.: Did you hear that ? — Yes. Was that evidence true or was it a lie ? — It is true. That you got your B.A. at Port Hare ? — No. Did you hear that on the machine ? — Yes, I heard. Did you hear that you said on that machine that 'I got

my B.A. at Port Hare' and that you said it three times; did you hear that on the machine ? — Yes.

Was that true or was it a lie ? — I thought..... Was it true or was it a lie ? — (No reply) When you said three times 'I got my B.A. at Port Hare'

? — (No reply) Was that a lie ? — I thought I was. Was it a lie ? — Yes, according to what is recorded. That is all I want to know, "because I want to suggest to

you that you were trying to put on an act then, in the same way that you have "been spending your time acting and deceiving mem-bers of the public since 1938; that is why I asked you if you had ever been examined for paranoia. But let us find out about some further acts of yours. This is what you said, yesterday. You can admit it or deny it; if you deny it we'll have it played back to you on the machine again. You said 'I made pol-itical studies. I used to read communist books.'in Do you remember saying that ? — Yes.

Is that true ? — Yes. Who gave you political instruction, and from whom did

you get your political studies ? — I said that I used to read... J-

Please answer my question ? — BY THE COURT; No, he is answering your question. BY MR. BZRRANGE; I see, he studied it by reading. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BZRRANGE CONTD.:

Nobody gave you any studies ? — No. You studied yourself ? — Yes.

- 6648 -

By reading "books ? — Yes. And communist "books ? — Yes. And you studied them ? — I used to read them a lot. You studied them, is my question. You used the word

•study' yourself; correct ? — I wouldn't say I've studied them. Did you not say 'I made political studies' ? — Yes. Was that true ? — Yes. Well, this is not the cross-examination which I directed

to another witness, but I propose to direct it to you. Tell me, do you know what is meant by the instruments of production ? — Instruments of production?

Yes ? — No. Do you know what is meant by the words 'surplus value'

? — No. Not even the words 'surplus profits' used by somebody

ej.se in these proceedings ? — No, Never heard of them ? — No. Not the vaguest idea what it is ? — No. Do you know what is meant by "Marxist-Leninism" ? — No. Never heard of it ? — No. Never heard of those two words ? — No. Never heard of Lenin, never heard of Marx ? — No. Well, tell me, you spoke about the class struggle; what

is the class struggle; what do you mean "by the class struggle, you mentioned it yesterday, not I ? — (No reply) f

What is meant by the class struggle ? — I might have been referring to some quotation.

I don't care what you might have been doing. I want to know what you mean by the words 'class struggle' ? — (No reply) BY THE COURT: What do you understand by those words ? — By class struggles I understand the whites which is dominating over the "blacks.

Collection: 1956 Treason Trial 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.