SV.Wax. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice DE WET. THE STATE vs. NELSON MANDELA and OTHERS. 20TH April 1964. _____________________________________________________ ON RESUMING AT 10 a.m. MR. FISCHER ADRESSES THE COURT: May it please your lordship. My lord, your lordship will have realised, from the cross-examination of the State witnesses, that there are certain important parts of the State evidence which will be admitted by some of the accused. Your lordship will also have realised, from the cross-examination, that there are certain equally important parts of that evidence which will be denied, and which we shall maintain are false. I wish to mention some of the more important issues some of the more important allegations of the State which will be placed in issue, and which I think ought properly to be stated by the defence, before it leads its evidence. Amongst the matters which will be placed in issue are the following: first, that accused Nos. 1 to 7 were all members of the National High Command of Umkonto we Sizwe. The defence evidence will show that accused Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 were not members of the High Command of Umkonto, or members of Umkonto at all. The defence evidence will also explain what the relationship was between accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4, and Umkonto, and the High Command of Umkonto. It will also show what the relationship was between accused -2 - MR. FISCHER’S ADDRESS. No. 3 and Umkonto, and between accused No. 5 and Umkonto and accused No. 10 and the African National Congress. Secondly, my lord, the issue will be the allegation by the crown that Umkonto was a section of the A.N.C. to use the phrase so frequently used by the State, the military wing of the African National Congress. Here the defence will seek to show that the leaders of both Umkonto and of the African National Congress, for sound valid reasons, which will be explained to your lordship, endeavoured to keep these two organisation entirely distinct. They did 10 not always succeed in this, for reasons which will also be explained but we will suggest that the object of keeping the two organisations separate was always kept in mind, and every effort was made to achieve that object. Thirdly, my lord, that the A.N.C.was a tool of the Communist Party, and that the aims and objectives of the A.N.C. were the aims and objectives of the Communist Party. Your lordship will remember that great point was made of this in the State’s opening. The defence evidence will deny this emphatically, my lord. It will show that the 20 African National Congress is a broad national movement embracing all classes of Africans within its ranks, and having the aim of achieving equal political rights for all South Africans. This evidence will show further that it welcomes not only the support which it received from the Communist Party, but also the support which it receives from many other quarters. Now on this point the evidence will show how Umkonto we Sizwe was formed in order to undertake sabotage only when it was considered that no other method remained for the achievement of political 30 - 3 - MR. FISCHER’S ADDRESS. rights. Finally, on this point, my lord the evidence will deny the allegation made in the State’s case that Umkonto, the African National Congress, relied, in order to obtain support, upon what was referred to as being the alleged hardships suffered by people. All this will be relevant, particularly, to the fourth point, and that is this, the fourth issue: That Umkonto had adopted a military plan called Operation Mayibuyo (7) and intended to embark upon guerrilla warfare during 1963, or had decided to embark upon guerrilla warfare. 10 BY THE COURT: Will that be denied? MR. FISCHER: That will be denied. Here the evidence will show that while preparations for guerrilla warfare were being made from as early as 1962, no plan was ever adopted, and the evidence will show why it was hoped throughout that such a step could be avoided. In regards particularly to the last issue, the Court will be asked to have regard to the motives, the character and political background of the man in charge of Umkonto we Sizwe and its operations. 20 In other words, to have regard, amongst other things, to the tradition of non-violence of the African National Congress, to have regard to the reasons which led these men to resort to sabotage in an effort to achieve their political objectives and why, in the light of these facts, they are believed when they say why Operation Mayibuyo had not been adopted, and that they would not have adopted it while there was some chance, however remote of having their objectives achieved by the combination of mass political struggle and sabotage. 30 - 4 - MR. FISCHER’S ADDRESS ACCUSED NO. 1. The defence case will commence with a statement from the dock by Accused No. 1, who personally took part in the establishment of Umkonto, and who will be able to inform the Court of the beginnings of that organisation, and of its history up to August, when he was arrested. ----- (DR. YUTAR points out that the accused should be apprised of the fact that a statement from the dock does not carry the same weight as evidence under oath, although he is sure that he knows this already.) ----- STATEMENT FROM THE DOCK OF NELSON MANDELA. ACCUSED NO. 1 10 My lord, I am the first accused. I hold a Bachelors Degree in Arts, and practised as an attorney in Johannesburg for a number of years, in partnership with Mr. Oliver Tambo, a co-conspirator in this case. I am a convicted prisoner, serving five years for leaving the country without a permit, and for inciting people to go on strike at the end of May 1961. I admit immediately that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkonto we Sizwe, and that I played a prominent role in its affairs until I was arrested in August 1962. 20 In the statement which I am about to make, I shall correct certain false impressions which have been created by State witnesses, amongst other things I will demonstrate that certain of the acts referred to in the evidence were not, or could not, have been committed by Umkonto. I will also deal with the relationship between the African National Congress and Umkonto and with the part which I personally have played in the affairs of both organi- - 5 - ACCUSED NO. 1. sations. I shall also deal with the part played by the Communist Party. In order to explain these matters properly, I will have to explain what Umkonto set out to achieve: what methods it prescribed for the achievement of the objects, and why these methods were chosen. I will also have to explain how I became involved in the activities of these organisations. At the outset, I want to say that the suggestion made by the State in its opening that the struggle in South Africa is under the influence of foreigners or communists 10 is wholly incorrect. I have done whatever I did, both as an individual and as a leader of my people, because of my experience in South Africa, and my own proudly-felt African background, and not because of what any outsider might have said. In my youth in the Transkei I listened to the elders of my tribe telling stories of the old days. Amongst the tales they related to me were those of wars fought by our ancestors in defence of the fatherland. The names of Dingans and Bambata, Hintse and Makana, Squngathi and Delasila. Moshoeshoe and Sekukhuni 20 were praised as the pride and glory of the entire African nation. I hoped then that life might offer me an opportunity to serve my people and make my humble contribution to their freedom struggle. This is what has motivated me in all that I have done in relation to the charges made against me in this case. XXX Having said this, I must deal immediately and at some length with the question of sabotage. Some of the things so far told to the Court are true and some are untrue. I do not however. deny that I planned sabotage. I did not 30 - 6 - ACCUSED NO. 1. plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love for violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation and oppression of my people by the Whites. I deny that Umkonto was responsible for a number of acts which clearly fall outside the policy of the organisation, but which have been charged in the indictment against us. I do not know what justification there was for these acts, or who committed them, but it demonstrates that 10 they could not have been authorised or committed by Umkonto, I want to refer briefly to the roots and policy of the organisation. I have already mentioned that I was one of the persons who helped form Umkonto. I, and the others who started the organisation, did so for two reasons. Firstly we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalise and control the feelings of our people, there would be 20 outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war.