"RIVONIA UNMASKED!" "Not only must we get to know who our enemy is, we must also render him harmless. That is the message of this book,” so writes the Minister of Justice, the Hon. Mr. B.J. Vorster, in his foreword. "RIVONIA UNMASKED!" is the dramatic story of the sensational Rivonia sabotage trial as well as of the plans of the enemy which were intended to lead to the destruction of a nation. In this book the mask is torn away to reveal the face of the monster with which we are confronted. 1 Rivonia Unmasked! Lauritz Strydom Voortrekkerpers JOHANNESBURG 2 FOREWORD BY THE HON. MR. B. J. VORSTER LIFE moves so rapidly and events follow each other with such speed that while one is speculating on what may happen tomorrow, one actually forgets the incidents of yesterday. Complete reports of court cases and other happenings can often not be given in newspapers because of lack of space and interest in a sensational court case can diminish when the proceedings are protracted for months. This did happen with the Rivonia case and I am pleased, therefore, that the whole matter is related in this book in such a concise and interesting manner. The incidents connected with Rivonia and the lessons learnt by those in authority and by others must definitely not be forgotten. We can rejoice as a nation and give thanks to God that the attack on the Republic and its way of life did not succeed, but unless this results in a much greater watchfulness we shall have gained but little. Not only must we get to know who our enemy is, we must also render him harmless. That is the message of this book. It could truly not have been an easy task for the writer to extract the gist of the matter from the thousands of pages of evidence. Every reader will acknowledge that he succeeded very well in doing this. This is verily a book which deserves a wide circle of readers and which will certainly obtain them. 3 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY DR. PERCY YUTAR WHEN I delivered my opening address in the so-called Rivonia Trial, the immediate reaction was that I had exaggerated the position and resorted to "dramatics" for some ulterior motive. Complete sight was lost of the fact that I am not (and never have been) a politician and that, as a lawyer, I am obliged, in terms of our law, to use the testimony to be given, both oral and documentary, as the basis for whatever I desire to say by way of opening, and that was all I did! As I had occasion to remark in court, I had not at any stage received any instruction whatsoever from the Minister of Justice, or anyone else for that matter, either directly or indirectly, as to who I should indict and on what charges: that was my responsibility, and, I may add, if I had to start that case de novo I would do the very same again. Quite apart from what I have read in the statements of witnesses, I myself was deeply shocked by and could hardly believe what I read in documents which were either in the handwriting of the accused or were found in their possession. These documents clearly revealed that the accused deliberately and maliciously plotted and engineered the commission of acts of violence and destruction throughout the country, directed against the homes and offices of State and municipal officials as well as against all lines and manner of communications. The planned purpose thereof was to bring about in the Republic of South Africa chaos, disorder and turmoil which would be aggravated, according to their plans, by the operation of thousands of trained guerrilla warfare units deployed throughout the country at various vantage points. These would be joined in the various areas by local inhabitants as well as by selected men posted to such areas. The combined operations were planned to lead to confusion, violent insurrection and rebellion followed at the appropriate juncture by an armed invasion of the country by military units of foreign powers. In the midst of the resulting chaos, disorder and turmoil, it was planned by the accused to set up a provisional revolutionary government to take over the administrative control of this country. The accused admitted the authenticity of all these documents, and also that their policy included the eventual overthrow of the Government of South Africa by violence. It is because of this that I submitted to the Court that this was a case of high treason par excellence, and it was on those facts found proved which constituted the crime, no matter by what name the crime may be called, that the accused were duly found guilty. In the main the documents provide more than adequate proof of each and every allegation contained both in the indictment and in the opening address, including (a) the involvement of Moscow, the Communist Parties of Algeria, China, Czecho-Slovakia, East Germany and several other countries in respect of the provision of financial assistance, arms, ammunition and military personnel, but, of course, this was to be kept secret for fear of international repercussions; (b) the fact that the African National Congress was completely dominated by the Communist Party of South Africa, and that between them they spoke for less than I of the entire population of South Africa. The fact of this domination was also to be kept secret from the rank and file of the African National Congress, and (c) the collection of large sums of money from persons and bodies of persons, in so far as the donors were not apprised of the facts set out in (a) and (b) above, nor of the fact that the moneys were to be used for the purpose of sabotage and revolution in this country. So strong was the documentary proof that it was barely necessary to adduce oral testimony in support of the various allegations made by the State, and for that reason I called as witnesses less than one half of the number of persons from whom statements had been taken by the Police. For that very same reason too, I deemed it sufficient to set out in three of the four volumes comprising the State's concluding address a factual analysis of the documentary exhibits and the oral testimony without any comment whatsoever: only in the fourth volume was a critical analysis attempted and then only in regard to documents dealing with military matters and explosives. In my view the documents spoke more eloquently that I could ever hope to do by way of critical comment. No wonder then that during the course of a hearing for bail, I declared that never in all my experience had the police presented me with a stronger case against an accused than in this case! Certain aspects of the case distressed me. Firstly, Alexander Hepple. He begged the police to be allowed to see me, offered to give evidence for the State, and even typed his own statement which contained a host of important matters, as well as his admission that he was a member of the Communist Party of South Africa, and as a measure of his bona fides he pointed out to the police the hiding place of Goldreich and Wolpe at Mountain View. I allowed him to see me and consult with the leader of the Johannesburg Bar and others to one of whom he subsequently wrote saying that he was satisfied that the course he had decided on was the right one. Just before his release, I told him that I could arrange for his further detention until he had testified, or have him watched. He replied that neither was necessary and gave me his word of honour that he would not abscond. He did! Such is the reliance one can place on the word of honour of a communist. Secondly, Albert Luthuli– a man acclaimed by the world as a man of peace and in fact awarded the Nobel Prize for peace. Yet the documents showed that he was consulted about the new policy of violence and sabotage, that he approved thereof, and gave it his blessing, and that he was kept in touch with the position. Thirdly, Alan Paton– a man who had won acclaim in a literary world and as a liberal thinker. Never have I seen a man head for the witness box so quickly even before his counsel had called his name. He knew, of course, that what he was to say would be publisized throughout the world. He did not know, of course, that I had a complete dossier on him compiled by the police. He advocated, whilst abroad, certain stern measures against the country of his birth, which he realised would seriously affect the very people whose cause he professed to have at heart and already in 1960 knowingly spoke of sabotage which broke out only a year later. He professed to be a prophet. I doubted it, because he had close contact with vicious, communistic and anti-South African literature, as well as with a number of well-known communists and traitors of South Africa. That is why I took the unusual step of cross- examining him. My learned colleague, Mr. T. B. Vorster, and I have independently read the chapters that follow and in so far as they deal with the facts of the case as disclosed during the trial, they have been set out correctly and accurately. I very much doubt whether there will ever be another Rivonia, but that is no reason why the Rivonia trial with all its sensational disclosures should be lightly glossed over or even forgotten.