1. law, govt and politics
2. law enforcement
3. police

S. BOTILE
51.
What did you ask him? --- I asked him why are we going
to be trained' in Botswana to be soldiers.
Is that the first thing that was said about this subject
on the second occasion? --- I don't follow the question.
Did you introduce the subject about the freedom fighters
(5
on the second occasion by asking him this question? --- I asked
him first.
About why - that question, why should you be trained? --I don't follow the question.
You introduced the subject by asking the question why
(1 0
should you be trained as freedom fighters? --- Yes I did.
And then he talked about it again? --- Yes he did talk
about it.
Did you ask him who was the chief of this organisation?
He told us, I did not ask him.
(1 5
Did you want to know that? --- No.
Did you want to know, did you ask him questions about the
details of this organisation?
What it is all about? --- I did
not ask him.
Why did you bother to ask him why you should become freedom(2 0
fighters? --- I wanted to know.
Why did you want to know? --- I wanted to know why are we
going to be trained to be soldiers.
What did he tell you? --- He said we are going to be trained
to be soldiers and fight for freedom in South Africa.
(25
And then what did you ask him then? --- I didn't ask him
further questions.
Why did you decide to ask him this question? --- I wanted
to know.
Why did you want to know? --- I wanted to know why are we
going to be trained to be soldiers.
You wanted tol ...
(30
52.
S. BOTILE
You wanted to know, y o u wanted to get informa tion about
this whole thing he was talking about?
Yes I wanted him
to inform me about that.
And when you asked him he then commenced telling you
about it? --- Yes.
(5
So it was in this way that he told you who the chief of
the organisation was? --- Yes.
Did you - if you hadn't asked him that question do you
think he would have talked about this idea again? --- I don't
(Ie
know.
When he arrived there were you having a general discussion?
We were playing guitars.
And you were listening to what he was saying when he told
you this? --- I listened.
And also Nongena? --- Yes.
(1 5
You stopped playing guitar and then you talked to him? --We played the guitars softly and at the same listened to what
he was saying.
You didn't ignore him? --- Yes.
Did you? Or do you mean you did not? --- We ignored him.
(2 0
But you talked to him? --- I asked him a question although
I didn't take particular notice.
You heard every word he said? --- I only heard what he told
us that we are going to be trained to be soldiers to fight for
freedom.
(2 5
And he told you the whole story again on the second occasion?
Yes.
Yes well then you were listening, you didn't ignore him? --I was listening to him and at the same time playing the guitar.
Why do you say you ignored him, if you ignore a person then(30
you don't take any notice of what he is saying? --- (Silence).
Isn't the/ •..
53.
S. BOTILE
Isn't the truth that you listened very carefully what
he was saying; because as you have said previously you wanted
to get information about this, you were interested to know
what it was about?
SMALBERGER, J.:
Is that so? --- (Silence).
The question put to you was did you listen
(5
very carefully, is that correct? --- I didn't quite follow the
question.
Counsel suggested to you that you had in fact listened
very carefully to what Accused No. 1 said that particular afternoon? Did you do so? --- I listened to what he was telling me
(1 0
but not all, I only listened to what he was telling me.
BY MR COETZEE:
And you say that on this occasion he again - he
asked you whether you are prepared to join this organisation?
Yes he asked us.
And what was your reaction? --- We had no interest in that. (1 5
And was it then that you said he became cross and he told
you about the firing squad? --- Yes.
Did you know what a firing squad meant? --- Yes I know
about a firing squad because I read about it in the newspapers.
And did you become very upset when he said this? --- We
(2 0
just laughed at him when he said this and we ignored him and we
kept on playing our guitars.
On that second occasion did you get the impression then that
he was serious? --- I gathered from what he said that we are fit
for a firing squad.
That he was serious?
(2 5
Yes.
You still laughed at him you didn't get upset with him?
We ignored him, we laughed at him and we played the guitar.
And you say eventually he left, did he say when he was
going to come and see you again? --- He didn't say so, he just
left.
And on the/ .••
(30
54.
S. BOTILE
And on the last occasion, the third occasion, you were
again you say'at Nongena's house when he arrived there?
Yes.
It was very fortunate - he was very lucky to have found
you both together in Nongena's house on all three occasions?
(5
Yes.
There was no prior arrangement that you should meet him
there? --- No.
Now what were you doing on this occasion when he arrived?
We were sitting there playing guitars.
(1
And how did it come about that he talked about freedom
fighting again on the third occasion? --- He told us about his
trip to Johannesburg and that he was going to cross the border.
How did
~t
come about that he started talking about this
In the course of the conver-(1 5
trip, did you ask him about it?
sation this cropped up, that he had been to Johannesburg.
In the course of what conversation? --- About soccer.
You say you were talking about soccer and then it cropped
up that he had been to Johannesburg? --- Yes.
Can you perhaps explain to us how it cropped up while you
were talkiug about soccer?
(20
He is also a football player and
we were talking about this and then he then in the course of the
conversation he then mentioned this.
He just suddenly mentioned that he had been to Johannesburg?
Yes.
(2 5
Was the intention that he should join your soccer club?
It was his desire to join our club and we were prepared to
accept him into our club.
And after he had
I
threatened you with the firing squad?
Before that he did express his wish to join the club.
When he arrived there on the third occasion were you
friendly / ..•
(30
s.
55.
friendly with him?
BOTILE
We didn't quarrel with him.
Did you think he was again coming to see you about freedom
fighting?
I didn't think so because he came there and he
joined in our conversation because we were talking about ball.
And then you say he suddenly started to talk about freedom (5
fighting again? --- Yes.
Didn't you tell him that this is now the third occasion on
which he has been talking about this thing and that you are not
interested, you don't want to hear anything more about it?
On the third occasion as well we told him that well we are
(1 0
not interested in what you are telling us.
When he started to talk about this or after he finished
telling you about his trip?--- After he had told us about his
trip we told him that we are not yet prepared to what he is
telling us - interested in what he was telling us.
(1 5
Not yet interested? --- We have no interest.
Did you think that there was a possibility that you might
get interested at a later stage or did you tell him that you
might get interested at a later stage?
No we didn't express
that view.
(2 C
And did you know this person Nqola Hempe? --- I knew him
by sight.
And on that third occasion did you - did Accused No. 1 tell
you that Nqola Hempe has been arrested? --- No he did not tell
us.
(2 5
Are you quite sure about that? --- I am sure.
Did you know that he was arrested?
I
did not know yet.
You only heard it afterwards? --- Yes.
You didn't hear it from Accused No. I? --- No.
When Accused No. 1 told you on the second occasion that
Nqola Hempe was the chief organiser of this organisation were
you
sUrprised/ •••
(3 0
56.
S. BOTILE
you surprised to hear that Nqola was involved in such a thing?
Well I did not take particular notice of what he was . saying
I just listened to it
as he was telling me.
You heard that he was saying that Nqola Hempe was chief
organiser of his organisation, this freedom fighting organisation?
(5
--- Yes I heard that.
So you knew Nqola Hempe by sight? --- Yes by sight.
So weren't you surprised and upset to hear such a serious
thing about Nqola Hempe? --- I could not be surprised because
I was not interested in such things, just listened to it.
(l C
Did you discuss the nature of the facts which Accused No. 1
told you with any of your friends?
I didn't talk about it.
Did you - at any other stage did you and Nongena discuss
it? --- No we did not discuss this.
You never talked to each other about what Accused No. 1
(1 5
had told you? --- We did not discuss it.
Did Nongena ask you what Accused No. 1 meant by firing
squad? --- He did not ask me.
Did he know what he meant by firing squad?
BY MR JURGENS:
M'Lord I think that it is a bit unfair to ask
the witness what Sydney Macotha knew
SMALBERGER, J.:
BY MR JURGENS:
(2 0
and what he understood.
Well unless they possibly discussed it .
The witness said they never discussed it.
My
learned friend can ask him whether Sydney ever told him that he
understood or did not understand.
SMALBERGER, J.:
Well I think you should lay
(2 5
some better founda-
tion for asking this question.
BY MR COETZEE:
As Your Lordship pleases.
Did - was there any
discussion between you and Nongena about the meaning of firing
squad? --- No we didn't discuss it .
(30
And he neither - do you say h e asked you what is meant by
it?/ ...
57.
S. BOTILE
it? --- Nongena?
Yes. --- No.
And you say when he talked about the firing squad you
got the impression that this man is meaning what he was saying?
Yes I got that impression about it because I know what a
(5
firing squad is by reading about it in the newspapers.
Did he frighten you to a certain extent? --- I didn't care
much about it.
This is a very unusual thing that a person should do, to
threaten you with a firing squad?
To us?
(10
It is a very unusual thing for a person to come in the
house and threaten other people with a firing squad because
they don't want to join a certain organisation? --- It is not
a usual thing.
And neither this caused you and Nongena to discuss this
whole episode?
(1 5
--- I didn't talk about this I kept it inside
me, I didn't care much about it, but I did hear about it.
Now
di~Accused
No.1 you say also asked you on the third
occasion what your attitude was about joining his organisation,
(20
is · that correct? --- Yes he asked us.
Once again you say you declined it? --- Yes.
Did the accused at any stage tell you and Nongena to keep
quiet about what he had told you? --- No he didn't say that.
And do you also agree
that~cused
No.1 wasn't a very great
(2 5
friend of yours? --- Yes.
He was no friend at all of yours? --- He was not my friend.
And this was the second occasion that you talked to him when
he introduced the subject about the freedom fighters to you?
Yes.
Did it surprise you that he would approach you, a man with (30
whom he had no substantial links , that he should approach you
about such/ •••
s.
58.
about such a serious thing as freedom fighting?
.
BOTILE
Well I
was not interested in it, I just listened.
Now were you also arrested by the police for this whole
thing? --- Yes I was arrested.
How long were you detained? --- Two months.
(5
And were you asked to make a statement in order to prove
your innocence and get a release? --- This is my true statement.
I was not asked to make a statement there.
Did you make a statement to the police? --- Yes I did make
(1 0
a statement.
And then you were released? --- Yes.
And did the police tell you that if you make a statement
which proves that you are innocent then you will be released?
Yes they said so.
Now you must - I am going to tell you what Accused No. 1
(1 5
says happened, you must listen what I am telling you and then
you can tell us whether you agree or disagree? --- Yes.
He says that before he ever had any discussions with you
about freedom fighting you had sent him a message to the effect
- through Michael, a certain person by the name of Michael, to
the effect that you wanted to see him?
(2 0
Is that so? --- No.
He says that he saw Nongena - shortly thereafter he saw
Nongena at the soccer field and that Nongena told him that he,
Nongena, wanted to see him?
I know nothing about that.
Well do you perhaps know about this, he says that it was
(2 5
arranged between him and Nongena that he should meet Nongena
at Nongena's house the following afternoon?
Do you know anything
about that? --- No I have no knowledge of that.
He says that he then saw you and Nongena in fact on this
particular afternoon and there was a general discussion about
soccer?
(3 0
He said that Nongena asked him whether it was true that
he had been/ •..
59.
s.
BOTILE
he had been to - had attempted to go to Botswana - or that
he had
attemp~ed
to go to Botswana for training? --- I know
nothing about that.
He says Nongena asked him - he was asked many questions
by either you or Nongena about the whole idea of freedom
fighting?
(5
'Is that so? --- No I asked him only once.
He said that he told you that he went as far as Johannesburg?
He said that you and Nongena indicated that you are
interested and would like to join this the freedom fighters?
We didn't say that.
(10
Have you heard before that Accused No. 1 had been away to
Johannesburg? --- I heard about that from him.
You didn't know it before? --- No I did not know it yet.
Did you and Nongena also ask him the route to follow?
(1 5
We did ask him about things but he didn't give us straight
answers.
You did ask him for instance what is the route to Botswana?
Yes.
What else did you ask him? --- The route - I asked him
about the route and the purpose of going there for training.
(20
You say he didn't give you straight answers? --- He didn't
give us straight answers.
We asked him about transport.
Did he give you an answer to that? --- He did not answer
us.
Did you ask him how you were going to get across the border? (2
We asked him how can one cross the borders without transport
because there are soldiers there.
How do you know that there were soldiers there? --- I read
in the papers that there were soldiers on the borders.
Did you discus s it that there are soldiers on the border?
I knew that of my own that there were soldiers there .
not tell this/ •••
I did
(30
60.
S. BOTILE
not tell this to anybody, I didn't ask for this from anybody.
Did you tell Accused No. 1 when you were discussing the
freedom fighters, did you tell him that you have read there
are soldiers on the borders? --- I did not tell him.
And did you ask him where after you cross the border to
(5
Botswana where were you supposed to go then? --- No I didn't
ask him those things.
Well he said that after you have asked him the route, you
said yes, he told you that he didn't know the route but that
if he happened to hear of anything which might assist you he
will tell you about it?
(le
Is that so, did he tell you that he
would tell you if he heard of anything? --- No he didn't tell us.
You probably wouldn't know about it, but he said that he
again met Nongena in the street
and Nongena asked him whether
he heard anything, do you know anything about that? --- No, I
(1 5
know nothing about that.
He said that it was then arranged that he would see Nongena
at a later stage?
He said that some time thereafter
on a
certain evening he saw Nongena - he arrived again at Nongena's
house and you were not there, you probably wouldn't know about
(2 0
it, he said he left again and he came back later and when he
returned you were present?
That was probably the second occas-
ion, you don't know anything about that, the fact that he had
been and left and come back again? --- No I know nothing about
that.
(2 5
He said that on this occasion he did tell you - he asked
you whether you knew that Nqola Hempe?
Is that so, did he ask
you whether you knew Nqola? --- He didn't ask me.
He said that you told him that you knew him? --- I deny that.
Is that so or can't you remember? --- I do not know that.
Well he said that Nqola is the person who is interested in
the same things/ .•.
(3 0
s.
61.
BOTILE
the same things in which you and Nongena were and he then
asked you whether you wanted him to tell Nqola about the .way
you and Nongena are feeling about freedom fighters?
so?
Is that
No I know nothing about that.
He said that you agreed and you also agreed that he would
tell Nqola about it?
(5
He said that on the third occasion when
he arrived at Nongena's house you were not there and you were
called by another boy?
Is that so? --- No when he came I was
already there.
He said that on that occasion he told you that Nqola had
(10
been arrested? --- I deny that.
At any stage during these discussions did you talk about
passports, or did he tell you anything about passports? --- No.
At no stage was mention made of passports? --- No there was
(15
none.
Well he said on this last occasion Nongena asked him or
suggested whether it would be an idea to travel with passports?
He told you that he didn't know much about passports but he did
not think it was a good idea?
--- I know nothing about that.
Do you maintain that at no stage were you interested in
(20
this whole idea of freedom fighters? --- No.
Would you have - if you had anything to do with freedom
fighters would you have admitted it to the police at any time
when they questioned you while you were detained? --- If I took
part in this I would have admitted it.
(25
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR COETZEE:
RE-EXAMINED BY MR JURGENS:
How long after your arrest and detention by the Police did
you make the statement which you now gave evidence to the Court?
I had been in custody for two months.
(30
And after you told - perhaps I have framed the question
incorrectly / .••
62.
S. BOTILE
incorrectly by making it 'statement' - at what stage did
you relate to'the police what you now related to the Court?
It is not so much formally made a statement, but relate to
the police?
SMALBERGER, J.:
Do you mean in relation to when he was taken
(5
into custody?
BY MR JURGENS:
Yes M'Lord. --- I was arrested for the first
time.
Yes but how long after you had been arrested did you tell
the story to the police that you told us today in Court? --- On (10
my arrest I did relate this story to the police.
And only some time thereafter you were released? --- Yes.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JURGENS:
SMALBERGER, J.:
I would like to know about this statement you
made to the police, was any promise made to you or inducement
offered therefor that you should make a statement?
I
(1 5
am
expecting no promise, what I have stated is the truth.
Did the police say to you now will you make a statement?
Where?
When you were in custody under arrest? --- I was assaulted (20
first I then made a statement.
And did they say that if you showed your innocence you
would be released? --- I was asked to tell the truth.
And your statement was that in the form of question and
answer, did they ask you questions and you wrote your answers
(2 5
down or did you volunteer the whole thing as one statement?
I was asked questions and my answers were written down.
What was written down did they read back to you? --- No.
Did you sign a document? --- Yes there is a paper which I
(30
signed.
What did you sign? --- I signed my name.
To what were you/ •..
s.
63.
BOTILE
To what were you signing your name? --- On a paper.
Do you know what was on the paper? --- That I did not
notice.
You say that you were assaulted by the police, when you
were first questioned by the police did you refuse to give
(5
them any information? --- I was protesting saying I do not know
why they are arresti n g me .
And when did the assault take place in relation to your
arrest? --- On the same day of my arrest I was assaulted.
And were you assaulted before or after the police
first
(l C
started questioning you? --- At the same time they were questioning me they assaulted me.
Do you know why they assaulted you? --- I don't know.
Was it because you weren't being co-operative or that they
thought that you weren't being co-operative? --- I don't know.
(1 5
Had you refused to answer any questions that they put to
you?
Yes there were.
There were questions that you refused to answer? --- Yes.
And then they assaulted you? --- Yes.
And after that did you answer those questions?
Yes.
Did they assault you on one or more occasions?
Once.
(2 0
And did those questions relate to the evidence which you
have given in Court today? --- Yes.
Had you not been assaulted what would your attitude have
been to answering the questions that were put to you? --- I
(2 5
would have said I know nothing.
Do I understand you correctly to say this morning that what
you in fact did tell the police was the truth, what you have
told us today is the truth?
Yes.
Mr Coetzee do you want to ask any further questions
arising from this?
BY MR COETZEE:/ .•.
{30
64.
V.H. TANDANI
No MILord.
BY MR COETZEE:
SMALBERGER, J::
Mr Jurgens?
BY MR JURGENS:
No thank you MILord.
THE COURT ADJOURNS:
(5
THE COURT RESUMES:
VUYANI HUDDELSTONE TANDANI: Sworn, states:
(Through Interpreter) :
EXAMINED BY MR JURGENS:
Vuyani do you reside in New Brighton, Port Elizabeth, and
you employed in Port Elizabeth?
Do you know Accused No. I?
Yes I stay there.
(10
Yes I know him.
How do you know him? --- We grew up together in the same
area.
Can you remember that you went to see him some time during
last year? --- Yes I still remember.
(15
Why did you go to see him? --- He said he wanted to see me.
How did he say so, by what means?
He sent somebody to
come and tell me that he wanted to see me.
Who is that person? --- It was Sipho.
Is that the person named Sipho Philpot Zita? --- I only
(20
know him by his first name, Sipho.
Can you remember when this was, the date or the month?
It was last year, I do not know the date but I think it was
towards the end of the year in December.
And as a result of what Sipho told you did you go to
Accused No. lis house?
(25
--- Yes I did go.
And did you find him at home? --- He was not in.
So you left? --- Yes I went away.
Did you see him again? --- The following day.
What happened the following day? --- He told me I should
wait for him there because he was still going to Xamalala (?) to
go and look/ ..•
(30
65.
V.H. TANDAN I
go and look for other people.
Was that'at this house? --- Yes at his house.
Now Xamalala is that a street in New Brighton?
Yes.
Did he say who he was going to get? --- He only to ld me
that he was going to get other fellows, he did not tell me
(5
the names.
And did you wait at his house? -- - Yes I waited.
And what happened? --- He stayed away for too long and I
decided to go.
And did you see each other again after that? --- We saw
each other long after that.
(Ie
He was coming back from school
when I saw him.
Where did you see each other? --- In the street.
In New Brighton? --- Yes.
And what happened there, what did he tell you? --- He said (1 5
I have no straight.
Why? --- I do not know why.
SMALBERGER, J.:
I beg your pardon, what did you say?
BY INTERPRETER:
He said I have no straight- am not afraid in
other words.
BY MR JURGENS:
(2 0
Did you know what he was referring to when he
said you were not straight? --- I thought he meant that I did
not wait for him at hi s house.
And then what happened then? --- After he had said to me
I am not straight he went away and I also went my own way.
(2 5
Did you see each other again? --- I saw him again after he
had been arrested.
But did he at any stage ever speak to you about anything?
Yes he did.
What did he say? --- He said he wanted me to go with him
to Botswana.
Did he say/ ...
(30
66.
V.H. TANDANI
Did he say what for? - -- To undergo military training.
For what· purpose? --- He did not tell me.
Did he say where you would undergo the military training?
In Botswana.
Did he say what you would do after you had received this
(5
military training? --- He didn't go to the extent of telling me.
Now what did he relate this military training to? --- He
only said we should go and train in Botswana and he further
told me that one of his family has gone there.
He did not tel l
me for what purpose.
( Ie
Now did he tell you why you should go with him to receive
military training outside the Republic? --- I have already
stated he did not tell me the purpose.
And what was your reaction to his request? --- I said I
would discuss this at horne first.
(1 5
And did you discuss it at horne? --- Yes I told my mother
about it.
And what did you decide
after~ur
discussion? ---
At horne
I was told if I am involved myself in such things and be
arrested I would have to see to me own affairs.
(2 0
And did you tell that to Accused No. I? --- I did not tell
h~.
Was that the only occasion when he spoke to you about
military training? --- He only mentioned military training to
me only on that occasion.
(2 5
Where was this? --- We were in the street.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JURGENS:
SMALBERGER, J.:
Was this on the same occasion that he told you
you were not straight? --- That was before that.
BY MR COETZEE:
M'Lord I think I find myself again in the
(3 0
position where I need to have a short discussion with the accused.
SMALBERGER, J.:/ .••
67.
SMALBERGER, J.:
V.H. TANDANI/Z.P.ZINTO
Yes very well Mr Coetzee, you can let me
know when you'are ready to proceed.
THE COURT ADJOURNS:
(5
THE COURT RESUMES:
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR COETZEE:
ZOYISILE PATRICK ZINTO: Sworn, states:
(Through Interpreter):
EXAMINED BY MR JURGENS:
Patrick are you resident in New Brighton, Port Elizabeth,
(10
and are you employed in Port Elizabeth? --- Yes.
Do you know Accused No.1? --- Yes I know him.
How do you know him? --- I have been schooling with him
doing Standard 6.
Can you remember on one Sunday afternoon during last year
(1 5
you met him at a soccer field at the Guide Hall in New Brighton?
Yes.
Can you remember on what date this was or during which
month? --- It was on a Sunday, I don't remember the date, but
it was towards the end of the year.
(2 0
1975? --- Yes last year.
What did you and Christopher speak about, what did he tell
He greeted me, I responded.
you?
And what did he say? --- He asked me what I was watching
there and I said I am watching a game of soccer.
He asked me
(2 5
what do I see on the field and I told him I was watching a game
of soccer.
He asked me do you see something wrong with this
field and I said I notice that our field is not right .
I then
said this field is supposed to be improved by the Board with its
money .
(3 0
What did the accused say to you? --- He then said I shouldn't
discuss such/ ••.
68.
Z.P. ZINTO
discuss such things I should discuss politics.
I then said
I cannot talk'about politics because I know nothing about that.
What did the accused say then? --- Accused No. 1 then said
he would like to see me and he would like me to go along with
him to go and undergo military training.
(5
I refused.
Did he say where you would undergo this military training?
He said we are going to go out, he did not tell me where to,
but he said we would come back.
Come back and do what? --- And fight the White man.
I
refused.
(10
Did he say how you would thmfight the White man, with
words or what? --- He said if you go out and receive military
training and from there we would come back and fight the Whites
with weapons.
I said I cannot do such a thing because I am
working.
(15
Was that the only occasion when the accused, Accused No.1,
spoke to you about military training? --- Yes on that day yes.
And on any other day - did he speak on any other day to
you about military training? --- I met him as I was returning
from work and he again talked about that thing.
(20
What did he say, did he ask you anything? --- He asked me if
I was prepared to go and I said no I am not prepared to.
And did he then leave you?
Yes.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JURGENS:
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR COETZEE:
(25
Was the first occasion when the accused spoke to you about
military training the day when the two of you were talking at
the soccer field?
I was returning from work.
Oh was that the first occasion? --- He spoke about military
training for the first time when he met me when I was returning (30
from work.
And what did/ ..•
Z.P. ZINTO
69.
And what did he say to you then? --- He asked me if I
was prepared uo go with him to receive military training.
Did you know that he was interested in military training?
I did not know that he was interested.
And was that the same day when he spoke to you at the
(5
soccer field or a different day? --- It was not on the same day.
Was it a long time afterwards that he spoke to you at the
soccer field or was it shortly afterwards? --- It was a long time
after that.
You say that on both occasions you refused? --- Yes I
(1 0
refused .
And then he left you alone? --- Yes.
Now the accused denies that he had seen you on two occasions,
he said he only saw you once at the soccer field? --- No.
Are you quite certain about that? --- I am certain .
(1 5
In which street was it you saw him on the first occasion?
He was corning out of Sander (?) Street and I was corning on
the upper side of the street and corning from work.
And he stopped you there in the street? --- Yes he stopped
me in the street.
(20
Were there other persons walking passed you?--- I was on the
side of the street and the people were walking on the other side.
Did he talk quite normally to you? --- Yes he talked to me
as we were walking along.
He didn't speak in a whisper? --- He was talking.
(2 5
Was he talking hard and you were talking hard? --- Yes he
was talking normally as I am talking now.
And you made it quite clear to him that day that you are
not interested? --- Yes I told him that I was not interested.
And when he saw you on the second occasion did he explain
to you the whole thing again? --- He did not explain everything.
He only said/ •.•
(30
70.
Z.P. ZINTO
He only said he wanted to take me along and go and receive
,
military training and then corne back.
Did he ask you whether you have changed your mind from
the first occasion? --- I did not change.
Did he ask you on the second occasion are you prepared now
(5
to go? --- I refused, I did not agree.
Did he ask you whether you have changed your mind? --- I
don't remember agreeing to such a thing.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR COETZEE:
(10
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR JURGENS:
SMALBERGER, J.:
I just want to be quite sure that I understand
your evidence correctly, he spoke to you on two occasions, once
in the street and once at the soccer field, is that correct?
No he didn't speak to me once.
No I said, did he speak to you once at the soccer field
(1 5
and he spoke to you once in the street, is that correct? --- Yes.
And on each of those occasions he spoke to you about
military training? --- Yes he was talking about military training.
Now I just want to be quite sure from you which of those
discussions took place first, the one in the street or the one
(2 0
at the soccer field? --- He spoke to me on the soccer field for
the first time.
WINSTON ERIC vITLKEN:
--------------SMAL BE RGERz R.:
DEUR MNR. COETZEE :
--------------§M!~~B~~~~:
(Verklaa r onde r ee d)
( 25
Is u kli e nte Afrikaa nsmagti g?
Nee.
Sal u asseblief vir hulle oortolk?
ONDERVHAGING D1'UR MNR. JURGENS:
------ - -------Is u In speurder-off isier in die Suid-Afrikaa ns e Poli s i e
met die rang van lui tenant verbonde aan die Veil i gs heidta k
gestasioneer te Port Elizabeth? -- Dit is korrek.
Is u di e / ••••
( 30
710
W.E. Wilken
i ...
Is u die ondersoekbeampte ill bierdie saak? -- Ek io o
Was u op .'n stadium bebulpsaam met die arrestasie en
ondersoek van die saak teen die persoon Nqola Hempe wat bier
genoem is? -- Ja dit is korrek o
Waar en wanneer is bierdie persoon gearresteer? -- Die
(5
persoon is in Oos Londen gearresteer op 21ste Januarie, bierdie jaar .
Waar is by aangehou? -- Hy was aangehou ook op Oos Londen
maar hy was ook na Port Elizabetb gebring vir sekere getuienis
(Ie
doeleindes .
Weet u uit u eie kennie waar bierdie Nqola Hempe hom
bevind
gedurende Desember, 1975? -- Ja ek bet ondersoek gedoen
in Port Elizabetb en ek bet vasgestel dat by weI in Port
Elizabeth werksaam was
gedurende De s emberma and .
Ja . Dit is ne t teen opsigte van die be wering dat die
beskuldigde in
Hempe .
J~sember
(1 5
gepraa t van die arrestasie van Nqola
Net terloops wanneer is die twee beskuldie; de s eea.rresteer'!
-- Die twee ueskuldigdes was onderskeidelik - beskuldigde was
gearresteer 22ste April van bie :rdie jaar en beskuldigde No. 2
( 20
die dag daarna, die 23ste Aprile
En as gevolg van informasie wa t u ingewin bet bet u ook
twee van die Staatsgetuies, dit is nou Similo Botile en Sydney
Macotha laat arresteer?
Ja , dit i s korrek .
U het in die bof gesi t toe Similo Botile getuig bet , was
u
teen~oordig
toe by gearresteer is? -- Nee ek was nie t e en-
( 2S
woordig met sy arrestasie nie o
Nou hierdie twee persone bet ook vir ons ge s @ dat bulle
vir twee maande aangebou is, waarom wa s dit so? -- Dit was
vermoed dat bierdie 'n groter omvang gebad bet en op daardie
( 3c
stadium wou ons - was ons bevrees dat die twee getuies sou
ontvlug en hulle was toe nog aangebou gewees omdat dit nog in
' n onders oek
i ...
72.
W. E • Wi 1 ken
I
0
•
•
In on ders oek stadium was .
Met
ande~
woorde t wee maande later bet u uitgevind dat
bulle st ori es - dat u niks gebad het om bulle stories te
weerl~
nie, dat u bulle toe l aa t ont sl aan het? -- Di t is korr'eko
Q:~l~ N_Y~:m~~RE VRA~J?~R ~NR_. JUBQ:EN~ .
~BgI§O~~BY~Q:ING_DEgR MNB.!.._COET~ :
Het No. 2 - ek dink ek sal bierdie vrae l ater aan die
•
getu ie stel, dit het nie betrekking
op die oomblik nie.
(Ie
2-T_~~_!_§_~_~~K ·
OF- HIERDIE
- - - - - STADIUM NB}M DI E HOF DIE LANG VERDAGINGo
----BY HERVATTI NG :
J2~_E:_~_l!_.Q~
Ml~B.!.._~~BQ:~~§_~~RE~K
(l~
__._.Q-A~ .
DIE HOF TOE.
MR.!-CO ~!ZEE ADDRE§§~§_!HE_C01!B!o
2QgB~ADIOUIQ@ .
THE COURT
I....
( 20
73
JUbGMENT
THE COURT RESUMES 24 . 9.76:
JUDGMENT
SMALBERGER, J.:
The two accused are charged with contraventions
of Section 2(1) (b) of Act 83 of 1967.
In respect of Count 1
it is alleged that both accused, after having attended discus-
(5
sions held at various places in the Port Elizabeth district,
consented to travel with certain other persons to Botswana via
Johannesburg and Mafeking and there to undergo military training
which would enable them, and I quote from the charge sheet, "to
return to the Republic of South Africa to fight the White people(lO
in the Republic of South Africa by violence in order to free
the Black people from oppression", and that in pursuance of
their resolution they travelled to Johannesburg.
The second
count which involves only Accused No.1, alleges that during
the period October 1975 to January 1976, Accused No. 1 incited,
(1 5
instigated and advised or encouraged certain persons named in
the charge sheet to undergo military training to enable them
to fight the White people in the Republic of South Africa by
violence in order, so the charge reads, "to free the Black
people from oppression".
(2 0
The two accused were represented by Mr Coetzee and pleaded
not guilty to the charges against them.
At the conclusion of
the State case neither accused gave evidence and the Defence
case was closed without any witnesses being called for the
Defence.
(2 5
The first witness called by the State was Phumelele Michael
Faku.
He was warned as an accomplice before giving evidence.
He testified to various meetings held at Veeplaas in the Port
Elizabeth district at which he, the two accused, and one Mayford
Faku decided to proceed to Botswana to undergo training as
soldiers with a view to returning to South Africa to fight the
White people/ •..
(30
JUDGMENT
74
White people with weapons and liberate the Black people.
At these meetings various matters were discussed relating to
the implementation of their plans.
At a later meeting at New
Brighton it was also agreed that one Sipiwo Makapela would
accompany them on their journey.
The necessary financial
(5
arrangements were discussed and made and eventually the five
of them left Port Elizabeth for Johannesburg, having acquired
single tickets for their journey.
Before leaving Port Eliza-
beth they gathered around a map in possession of Accused No. 1
and discussed what route they would take from Mafeking to
Botswana and how they would cross the border.
(10
On arrival in
Johannesburg the witness, the two accused and their two companions went to the house of Miss Joyce Faku, the witness'
sister.
When she heard of their plans she became upset and
tried to persuade them to abandon what they had in mind and to
return to Port Elizabeth.
(1 5
Discussion and argument, at times
heated, ensued between the five persons and ultimately the
witness and the two accused decided to return to Port Elizabeth,
which they did the next day.
Mayford Faku and Sipiwo Makapela
apparently proceeded as originally agreed and nothing was
(2 0
revealed in this Court of their subsequent movements and present
whereabouts.
No substantial challenge was directed to the
evidence of Michael Faku under cross-examination and no grounds
were advanced in argument why the evidence should not be believed.
We are mindful of the fact that he is an accomplice and that his(2 5
evidence should therefore be approached with the caution which
the law enjoys.
We are particularly aware that in a case such
as the present the dangers of deliberate exculpation and false
implications are probably greater than in other cases involving
accomplice evidence, thereby necessitating especial vigilance
on our part.
We were impressed with the demeanour of Michael
Faku in the/ . . .
(3 0
75
JUDGMENT
Faku in the witness box and the manner in which he gave his
His evidence was virtually unchallenged under
evidence.
cross-examination and the accused did not seek to deny it
under oath.
We are satisfied that all the requirements re-
lating to accomplice evidence have been satisfied, and we have
(5
no hesitation in accepting his evidence.
Section 2(1) (b) of the Terrorism Act, No. 83 of 1967,
provides , and I quote :
"Subject to the provisions of sub-section
(4), any person who in the Republic or
elsewhere undergoes or attempts, consents
or takes any steps to undergo, or incites,
instigates, commands, aids, advises,
encourages or procures any other person
to undergo any training which would be of
use to any person intending to endanger
the maintenance of law and order, and who
fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that he did not undergo or attempt, consent
or take any steps to undergo, or incite ,
instigate, command, aid, advise, encourage
or procure such other persons to undergo
such training for the purpose of using it
or causing it to be used to commit any act
likely to have any of the results referred
to in sub-section (2) in the Republic or
any portion thereof, shall be guilty of the
offence of participation in terroristic
activities ."
The results referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 2
are widespread in their nature and effect.
(10
(1 5
(20
We are satisfied,
beyond all reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the two accused
on Count 1 falls within the ambit of the provisions of Section
2(1) (b) of Act 83 of 1967, in that they attempted , consented
and took steps to undergo military training which could be of
(2 5
use to any person intending to endanger the maintenance of law
and order, and that they have failed to establish beyond a
reasonable doubt that they did not so act for the purpose of
using such training to commit an act likely to have the results
contemplated in Section 2(2) of the Act.
(30
In the circumstances, they have contravened the provisions
of Section/ .••
76
JUDGMENT
Section 2(1) (b) of the Act and they are accordingly both
found GUILTY ON COUNT 1, as charged.
Count 2 relates only to Accused No.1.
Four witnesses
testified in regard to this count, apart from Lieutenant Wilken,
whose evidence did not really take the matter any further.
(5
Sydney Macotha testified that Accused No. 1 had on three
on~
separate occasions approached him and
Similo Botile, with
a view to recruiting them to undergo military training in
Botswana and to come back to South Africa with weapons to fight
the White people.
His evidence in this regard was supported
by Similo Botile.
Mr Coetzee, in his argument, pointed out
(1 0
various inconsistencies, contradictions and improbabilities in
their evidence.
Principal amongst the latter were that
Accused No. 1 would have approached persons little known to him
with a view to inciting or encouraging them to undergo military (1 5
training, and that he would have persisted in his efforts,
despite the lack of interest in, and even objection to, his
proposal.
He also pointed out that both witnesses had , according
to them, been assaulted by the police and had only implicated
Accused No.1 after such assaults.
He argued that had their
(2 0
interest in the accused's approaches to them been as detached
as they suggest they would have had no hesitation in telling
the police about his conduct, and it would not have been necessary for them to have been assaulted before divulging information.
There are, undoubtedly, certain discrepancies and contra-
(2 5
dictions in the evidence of Sydney and Similo, but they are not,
in our view, of so serious a nature as to justify a rejection of
their evidence.
It is probable that they would have shown
greater curiosity and even interest in the proposals made by
Accused No. 1 than they cared to admit, and this must to some
extent reflect upon their credibility.
This fact and the fact
that their/ ...
(30
77
JUDGMENT
that their disclosur$to the police were only made after some
physical persnasion had been brought to bear upon them by the
police, makes it necessary to approach their evidence with care.
Their general demeanour in the witness box, insofar as it is
possible to guage this when a witness testifies through the
medium of an interpreter, was satisfactory.
each other in material respects.
(5
They corroborate
Certain aspects of their
evidence have a distinct ring of truth about them, such as the
statement by Accused No.
L when
the witnesses were not amenable
to his proposals, that they were only fit for the firing squad.
(l C
We are satisfied, notwithstanding the collective effect
of the criticisms I have mentioned, that their evidence is
generally acceptable. The acceptability of their evidence is
strengthened by the fact that Accused No. 1 did not seek to deny
their evidence under oath.
We accordingly accept that Accused (1 5
No. 1 approached them, as they alleged he did, with the view to
inciting or encouraging them to undergo military training.
The witness Vuyani Tandani testified that Accused No. 1
had approached him once and suggested that the witness go to
Botswana to undergo military training.
Accused No. 1 did not
(2 0
disclose the purpose for which the military training was to be
undergone.
The evidence of this witness was neither challenged
under cross-examination, nor denied in evidence.
This evidence,
in our view, establishes that Accused No. 1 encouraged the
witness to undergo training which could be of use to any person (2 5
intending to endanger the maintenance of law and order, and that
as such his conduct falls within the very wide ambit of Section
2(1) (b) of Act 83 of 1967.
The witness Zoyisile Patrick Zinto testified to two
approaches made to him by Accused No. 1 to undergo military
training outside the Republic, with a view to coming to South
Africa tol ...
(3 0
78
•
Africa to fight the White people.
JUDGMENT
Apart from the suggestion
under cross-examination that Accused No. 1 had only
appr~ached
the witness on one occasion, his evidence is not challenged
and not denied under oath.
The last two witnesses I have mentioned both gave their
(5
evidence in a satisfactory manner, and we accept their evidence.
We are satisfied, having regard to the provisions of
section 2(1) (b) of the Act, that the evidence on Count 2 establishes the guilt of the Accused No. 1 on that count, and we
accordingly find him GUILTY on that count in respect of the
(10
four persons whose names are mentioned in Count 2.
To sum up, Accused No. 1 is found GUILTY ON BOTH COUNTS
and Accused No.2 is found GUILTY ON COUNT 1.
(1 5
MR JURGENS HANDS IN FORM SAP.69:
ACCUSED NO. 1 HAS NO PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS:
ACCUSED NO. 2 ADMITS HIS PREVIOUS CONVICTION:
SMALBERGER, J.:
Before giving you the opportunity of addressing
on sentence, Mr Coetzee, I just wish to note on record that in
(2 0
terms of Section 254(2) of Act 56 of 1955, Phumelele Michael
Faku is discharged from all liability to prosecution arising
from his participation in the events to which he testified.
BY MR COETZEE:
MILord I only wish to address Your Lordship on
(2 5
the sentence and I will submit MILord that the following circumstances can serve as mitigating circumstances in this case.
In respect of both accused, No. 1 and No.2, on Count 1 I submit
the following.
Both accused were apparently under the influence
of the person who was called Mayford Faku.
It will be recalled (3 0
that Michael testified that Mayford appeared to be the leader and
the main/ ..•
ADDRESS ON SENTENCE
79
•
the main instigator of the whole scheme under which they had
to go for military training.
Your Lordship will also recall
that Michael Faku's evidence was to the effect that when
Accused No.1 arrived at Veeplaas on the Saturday he hadn't
decided yet - he hadn't made up his mind yet to join this
(5
organisation, it was only as a result of his discussion between
them and Mayford Faku that Accused No. 1 decided to join.
M'Lord a further circumstance is the family relationship between
Mayford Faku and Accused No.1 .
Michael is also closely
related to Mayford and he agreed that that relationship played
a part in their decisions to join this organisation.
(10
M'Lord
there is also the other factor that - which was agreed to by
Michael Faku, that Mayford had told them of various, as he had
put it 'pleasures', which one can almost call a sort of a fringe
benefit of
the military training.
He had mentioned the fact
(1 5
that they would receive free education and that this was also
not of inconsiderable influence which was brought to bear on
their minds to make them take this decision.
M' Lord there is
the further factor, no doubt Your Lordship will bear in mind in
considering the sentence, that they are only charged of attempt-(2 0
ing to undergo military training and so M'Lord I will submit
that no doubt the sentence for an attempt and the sentence for
a completion of this act must, in my respectful submission,
differ.
M'Lord in respect of Accused No.2, there is a further
consideration, it is common cause between the State and the
Defenc~
(2 5
that Accused No. 2 had assisted the police in the investi-
gation of this case, and M'Lord in respect of him I make the
further observation that after he had returned from Johannesburg
there is no evidence of any further association with this whole
thing .
M'Lord in respect of Count 2 relating only to Accused (30
No.1, I submit/ •.•
•
80
ADDRESS ON SENTENCE
No.1, I submit that Your Lordship will at least find in his
favour that his activities in recruiting people - he is
~ot
charged with recruiting, but as the underlying activity which
the Act intends to prohibit is the recruiting of freedom
fighters, I would submit M'Lord that his association and his
activities to a certain extent are limited.
(5
M'Lord although
Your Lordship found that he had made three approaches to Similo
and Nongena and two to one of the other witnesses, I would submit
that
nowhere in the evidence do these witnesses testify that
he tried to be very persuasive and tried to persuade them.
The(lO
evidence amounts to an attempt to approach them and to ask them
to join, but there is no - none of these witnesses go so far as
to say that he tried to persuade them - to win them over to
join the organisation, and I would submit that to that extent
it can be said that Accused No.1 did exercise some reservation. (1 5
There is also the further factor that Lieutenant Wilken has
said that whereas the whole situation appeared to be serious
originally it turned out not to be as serious and for that
reason certain persons were not charged.
M'Lord I submit that
this is a feature which can be taken into account in considering(20
the sentence as it reflects on the seriousness of the situation
which prevailed and a situation in which Accused No. 1 wilfully
participated.
M'Lord in respect of the sentences Your Lordship
is no doubt aware that a five year sentence is compulsory and
that the Act does not give Your Lordship any discretion to
(25
impose a sentence of less than five years.
SMALBERGER, J.:
BY MR COETZEE:
I am painfully aware of that Mr Coetzee.
I would submit M'Lord that Your Lordship will
probably, if there was no provisions as to compulsory sentence,
and I submit with respect M'Lord that Your Lords hip will probably(3 C
consider imposing a lesser sentence than five years for Count 1,
by reason of/ •..
•
81
ADDRESS ON SENTENCE
by reason of the fact that they have only attempted to undergo
military training, and that there is no further evidence,
even in respect of Accused No . 1, that he made other attempts
to obtain his purpose, and M'Lord on that line of reasoning
I submit that Your Lordship will probably have sentenced them
to a lesser sentence than five years on the first count.
(5
Now
Your Lordship has got no discretion and must impose a five year
sentence.
Then one comes to the second count.
Now if Your
Lordship would have, and I submit this with respect M'Lord,
imposed a lesser sentence than five years on the first count,
(10
then by imposing a five year sentence on both counts, and I
think it is common cause that the sentence can run concurrently,
I can briefly refer to - I think that is common cause.
SMALBERGER, J . :
I think it should be.
I know that in Hatting's
case in the Appellate Division the sentences were made to run
(1 5
concurrently without any comments by the Appellate Division making any provision which precludes me from making them to
run concurrently.
BY MR COETZEE:
There is a case where it was ruled that - in the
case of the dagga sentences which I submit one finds a similar
(2 0
situation where the accused was convicted of two counts and it
was found that
his
sentence can run concurrently.
So therefore
if Your Lordship imposes a five year sentence on Count 1 and
order that the sentence on Count 2 in respect of Accused No. I
run concurrently, I would submit M'Lord that this satisfies all (2 5
the circumstances of this case and that if Your Lordship had had
a discretion in that sentence Your Lordship would not have
sentenced Accused No. I to more than five years imprisonment on
both counts.
M'Lord while it may be said that this does not
reflect the true position because Accused No . 2 is convicted of (30
two counts and Accused No. 1 only on one count and they are
getting, in/ •..
•
82
•
getting, in effect,
SENTENCE
the s a me sentence, I submit MILord that
•
this is a feature which is perhaps unfortunate for Accused
No.2, but that Your Lordship should not consider this as a
reason why Accused No. 1 should get a more severe sentence
than the compulsory one provided by the Act.
(5
SENTENCE
SMALBERGER, J.:
The legislature considers contraventions of
the Terrorism Act in a serious light.
It provides that on
conviction you are liable to the penalties provided for by law
for the offence of treason.
(1 0
This means that it is competent to
impose the death penalty for contraventions of the Act.
I
mention this in the hope that this will in itself in the future
discourage you from further activities of the kind which have
led to your conviction.
(1 5
Mr Coetzee I omitted to ask you if you could give me the
age of the accused.
BY MR COETZEE:
Accused No. 1 is 20 years old - they are both
20 years old.
SMALBERGER, J.:
No.2 first.
Thank you.
I propose to deal with Accused
You are still a young man, 20 years of age.
(2 0
On
all the evidence you played a minor role in this inept and
somewhat ill-prepared and ill-considered attempt to leave the
country and undergo training.
In Johannesburg you were easily
persuaded to abandon your idea and return to Port Elizabeth.
(2 5
There is no suggestion or evidence that subsequently you took
part in any further unlawful activities.
I accept that you
were influenced in embarking on this venture by Mayford Faku,
and I accept that subsequently you assisted the police in their
investigations of the case.
Unfortunately, the Act provides
a minimum penalty of five years imprisonment.
I am precluded
by the/ ...
(3 0
•
•
83
SENTENCE
by the provisions of the Act from treating you as a juvenile
and
suspendin~
any portion of your sentence.
I consider five
years imprisonment in your case to be a severe penality and
were it in my power to do so I would have imposed a lesser
sentence and would have suspended a large portion of the five
years.
(5
I am, however, obliged to give effect to the law, even
though I am unhappy that my discretion should be fettered to the
extent that it is.
I accordingly have no alternative but to
impose upon you the minimum sentence provided for by law, which
is one of FIVE (5) YEARS IMPRISONMENT.
(10
In the case of Accused No.1, you too are a young man, you
too would have done better had you continued with your schooling
and not engaged in these activities.
By continuing with your
schooling and possibly qualifying as a teacher you could have
made a much greater contribution towards the community.
I
(1 5
accept, in your case too, that you were influenced by Mayford
Faku.
You were somewhat more persistent in your resolve to go
to Botswana than Accused No.2.
On the evidence, in Johannes-
burg you tried initially to persuade Michael Faku not to return
to Port Elizabeth, although you ultimately decided to return
with him and Accused No.2.
your unlawful activities.
(2 0
On your return you continued with
You approached the four State witnes-
ses who have given evidence with a view to persuading them to
undergo military training.
In the case of some of them you
approached them more than once.
You were annoyed at the atti- (2 5
tude of at least two of them in not being prepared to fall in
with your suggestion, and in the light of these features your
conduct must obviously be seen in a more serious light than that
of Accused No.2.
In your case too, I am compelled by law to
impose upon you a minimum sentence of five years in respect of
each count.
I do, however, agree with your Counsel that to
require you/ .•.
(30
•
84
SENTENCE
require you to serve ten y e ars imprisonment would be dis-
•
\
proportionate-to the seriousness of the offences that you have
committed.
I accordingly propose to impose upon you a
sentence which will effectively mean that you will serve six
years imprisonment.
In order to achieve this end, I impose
(5
upon you, as I am obliged to on Count 1, FIVE (5) YEARS
IMPRISONMENT, and also on Count 2 FIVE (5) YEARS IMPRISONMENT,
but I direct that FOUR (4) of the FIVE (5) years imprisonment
on Count 2 run concurrently with the sentence you will serve on
Count 1.
THE COURT ADJOURNS:
(1
85
•
•
TRANSCRIBER ' S
I,
the undersigned ,
CERTIFICATE
hereby certify that the aforegoing
is a true and correct transcription of the original
evidence recorded by means of a mechanical recorder in the
case of:
THE
STATE
VERSUS:
TR f~SCRIBER
LUBBE
OORSKRYFSTER
Ek ,
die ondergetekende ,
& M. J . GABA
C . N. FAKU
RECORDINGS
SE
:
(NATAL )
(PTY . ) LTD .
SERTIFIK~il.T
sertifiseer hiermee dat die voor-
afgaande In ware en juiste oorskrif is van die oorspronklike
getuienis wat deur middel van In rneganiese opvangtoestel opgeneem is in die saak van:
DIE
STAhT
I
TEEN:
OORSKRYFSTER:
LUBBE
OPNAMES
...... ... .. .... .. ...
(NATAL )
(EDMS . ) BEPERK.
Collection Number: AD1901
SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTE OF RACE RELATIONS, Security trials Court
Records 1958-1978
PUBLISHER:
Pub/isher:- Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand
Location:- Johannesburg
©2012
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, \naccurate, distorted or untrue. While these
digital records are true facsimiles of the crJllection records 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.
This document is part of a private collection deposited with Historical Papers at The
University of the Witwatersrand.