-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/14840f2df0a8519afe616027b973df56.pdf
add7275d6fc4e17238d7d43b98aa0de6
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number: 2006-0458-F
FOIA
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Communications
Series/Staff Member:
Don Baer
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
10139
FolderiD:
Folder Title:
Mandel a
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
s
90
2
7
3
�TO: Gabrielle
FROM: Erin
RE: Mandela contacts
I was able to track down a.few names that might be helpful:
* Amina Cachalia -- a veteran activist who has known Mandela
since the 1940s
* cyril Ramaphosa -- a senior ANC leader
* Mac Maharaj -- a top strategist in the ANC and a former
prisoner on Robben Island (the same island where Mandela
served his prison term)
*
Walter Sisulu
Mandala's mentor and advisor since his
law school days in Johannesburg
* Zinda Mandela & Zeni Dlamini (two of his children -- both
girls -- from his marriage to Winnie Mandela)
I think Amina Cachalia and Walter Sisulu -- if he is still alive
-- would offer the most insight into Mandala's personal and
political strength and character. I will continue to look for
other names that might also be of some use.
I have also selected an article from Time that I thought was
particularly good at giving the reader a sense of Mandala's
common touch and his connection with the people of South Africa.
Let me know if I can be of further assistance!
��l :
I:
. !
c
a!
r
r'
t'
t·
s
5
g
tl .
a
h
\1
SJ
p.
Ol
P1
m
a:
di
~l
te
of
ht
cc.
�Fond of the symbolic gesture, Nelson Mandela plays
·up his dreams but never plays down to his countrymen
from his chair to greet everyone who approaches him.) His patrician nature is on
display most prominently in his dealings
with President F.W. de Klerk, whom he has
Mandela witnessed the dynamic of often treated as a kind of bumbling equerleadership early on. Several times a year, ry. At the end of the first day of negotiations
JUST A SHORT STROLL
his guardian, Chief Jongintaba, the regent for a new constitution in 1991, Mandela
from Nelson Mandela's of the Thembu tribe, presided over what gave De Klerk a withering dressing down:
modest country house were essentially tribal town meetings. Peo- "Even the head of an illegitimate, discredin the Transkei is the ple came from far and wide to Chief Jon- ited minority regime, as his is, has certain
even more humble vil- gintaba's royal seat, the Great Place at moral standards to uphold." His wrath is
lage where he was born. The round Mqekezweni. These meetings lasted days, cold. not hot; he does not explode at his
thatched huts of Qunu have no running and did not end until everyone had had a foes, he freezes them out.
water or electricity, and shy herdboys chance to speak his mind. Rolihlahla sat on
At the same time, Mandela possesses a
wielding sticks tend the skinny cattle the the fringes and watched as his guardian lis- common touch that no amount of political
same way young Rolihlahla Nelson Man- tened in thoughtful silence. Only at the end coaching can inculcate. When Mandela
deJa did almost 70 years ago. Walking would Chief Jongintaba speak, and then it speaks at banquets, he makes a point of goacross the green hills above the village one was to nurture a consensus. A leader, Man- ing into the kitchen and shaking hands
morning not long ago, Mandela
.. with every dishwasher and bus' ~ boy. On countless occasions, he
recalled a lesson he learned as a
boy. "When you want to get a herd
will stop in the middle of a street
to move in a certain direction;' he
c or hallway to talk with a little boy;
said, "you stand at the back with a
i his questioning has the rhythm of
a catechism. "How old are you?"
stick. Then a few of the more energetic cattle move to the front and
~ he will say. "Four," the boy might
~ whisper. "Ah, you're a big man,
the rest of the cattle follow. You
are really guiding them from be; man!" he will reply with a smile.
hind:' He paused before saying
~ "And what did you have for breakwith a smile, "That is how a leader
~ fast today?"
should do his work:'
~
One paradox of leadership is
No one would suggest that so
2 that voters are partial to candicharismatic a figure as Nelson
~ dates who seem both bigger than
~ they are and yet are also one of
Mandela, a doughty and energetic
75, leads from behind. But Manthem. When Mandela lived undeJa has always made his authority
derground as an outlaw in the earfelt on two levels: by standing at
ly 1960s and was dubbed the Black
the head of the African National
Pimpernel by the South African
Congress as symbol and standard ==~NOBLE: ~d':.=~ 1961 Mandela
press for his ability to elude the
Ill 18 rep manners
police, his colleagues marveled at
common u
bearer and by forming strategy
from behind by suggestion, pressure, indi- deJa learned, does not impose a decision. how he blended in with the people. He
rection. During his career as a politician-a He molds one.
usually disguised himself as a chauffeur; he
The lessons of the Great Place apply to- would don a long dustcoat, hunch his
word he proudly uses to describe himselfhe has at times moved out ahead of his col- day when Mandela chairs meetings of the shoulders and, suddenly, this tall, singularleagues and audaciously created policy, National Executive Committee, the ruling ly regal figure was transformed into one of
while at other times he has been content to body of the A. N.c. His face becomes a mask the huddled masses moving along the
plant the seed of an idea that bears fruit as he notes each person's views and regis- streets of Johannesburg. Even today, at ralonly many years later.
ters the course of the discussion and argu- lies or meetings, the poorest supporter of
Next week Mandela will become the ment. He knows the weight of his opinion the A.N.C. feels he has the right to greet and
President of the country whose govern- and holds it in reserve until it is deemed address his leader.
Though Mandela rnay be a natural mass
ment he fought against for so long. Leading necessary. If there is a deadlock he ata liberation struggle is a task fundamentally tempts to resolve it. Otherwise he tries to leader, he does not exhibit all the attributes
different from heading a government; steer the argument toward consensus.
associated with such charismatic figures.
Mandela, as someone once observed, is Yes, Mandela may plunge into ecstatic
Mandela will no longer seek to bring a system down but to build one up. Yet his style a combination of African nobility and Brit- crowds at rallies, pump hands, give the
of leadership is suited to his new task, for ish aristocracy. He has the punctilious clenched-fist A. N.C. salute and dance a few
he is a practiced seeker of unity and manners of a Victorian gentleman. (His steps of the toyi-toyi. But when he begins
aides sometimes chastise him for rising to speak, the cheers usually tum into a
consensus.
iiiii
li
·i
I
:
TIME. MAY 9, 1994
1,
37
�..
good-natured but puzzled silence. Not for
Mandela the soaring metaphors of Martin
Luther King or the rhyming aphorisms of
Jesse Jackson; he addresses his audiences
in the sober, didactic style of an organicchemistry professor. "I try not to be a
rabble rouser," he says. "The people want
things explained to them clearly and rationally. They recognize when someone is
Island, he wanted to stage a strike to force
the warders to address prisoners with the
honorific "Mr." But he was always turned
down by his comrades. Last year he urged
the A. N.c. to reduce the voting age to 14, but
his colleagues refused. Once he has lost, he
publicly speaks in favor of the position he
opposed. "I sometimes com&W the National Executive Committee with an idea and
PRISONER OF FAME AND POWER: Mandel&, vlsltins his fonner cell on Robben Island this
year, remains surrounded by anned guards wherever he goes
E
How was the man who emerged
from prison different from the one
who went in? His reply: "I came out mature!'
speaking to them seriously. They want to
see how you handle difficult situations,
whether or not you stay calm:·
Mandela rarely practices the modem
politician's art of telling his listeners what
he thinks they want to hear. To black audiences, he declares that democracy and majority rule will not change the material circumstances of their Jives overnight. At the
same time, he informs white audiences
that they must take responsibility for the
past and they will have to reconcile themselves to a future of majority rule. He is the
paterfamilias of his nation (his staff members call him "Tata;· which means father),
but he is a stem parent, not a cuddly one.
For Mandela, consensus must be its
own reward, for he does not always get his
way. During his imprisonment on Robben
38
they overrule me;' he recently observed.
"And I obey them, even when they are
wrong;' he added with a smile. "That is democracy."
Mandela has always taken the long
view, and sometimes this gives him victories in battles that were started decades
ago. After the government began to implement its Bantustan policies in the 1960s
and '70s, a plan to relegate all blacks to
poor, quasi-independent tribal homelands,
Mandela urged the A.N.C. to make peace
with the black leaders of these enclaves
whom many in the movement scorned as
traitors. The A.N.C. shied away from this
policy, but he kept arguing his case. In the
past three years, however, the A.N.C. has
brought these leaders into its embrace.
His style derives from a hard-won disci-
pline. Oliver Tambo, his former law pan.
ner and the longtime leader of the A.N.c.
exile who died last year, once described the
youthful Mandela as "passionate, emotion~(~:,
al, sensitive, quickly stung to bitterness BDd At.
retaliation by insult and patronage." Wbo • .,·
can discern those characteristics in the
controlled Nelson Mandela of today? H8
now prizes rationality, logic, compromise,
and distrusts sentiment. Prison steeled
him, and over the decades he came to see
emotion not as an ally but as a demon to be
shunned. How was the man who emerged ·
from prison different from the one who
went in? His reply: "I came out mature." It
is not simply that he harbors little bitterness in his heart; he knows that bitterness ·
will not move him an inch closer to his goal
If there has been a consistent criticism
of Mandela over the years, it is that he is too
willing to see the good in people. If this is a
flaw, it is one he accepts because it grows
out of his great strength, his generosity of
heart toward his enemies. He defends himself by noting that thinking too well of people sometimes makes them behave better
than they otherwise would. He believes in
the essential goodness of the human heart,
even though he has spent a lifetime suffering the wounds of heartless authorities.
At home, Mandela will take out his
well-thumbed Filofax, find a number, and
telephone a colleague to discuss an issue.
However, he is not a man who is mired in
details. Although Mandela did not even see
a television until the 1970s, he understands
the importance of mass-media images, and
will make gestures of large symbolic content, as when he grasped De Klerk's hand
at the end of their recent debate and said
he would be proud to work with his opponent-a man he has publicly labeled un- ·
trustworthy. He is gracious, amiable, gentlemanly, ever the host, always the subtle
master of the situation.
Even as Mandela voted last week and
dutifully smiled in all directions for the
photographers, his mind seemed both on
the past and on the future; he thought back
to his fallen comrades who did not Jive to
share his victory and ahead to how he
would contrive to forge one nation out of a
divided land. His moment of triumph gratifies him but comes with unsought consequences. While in jail, Mandela was surrounded by armed guards who never took
their eyes off him. Now, wherever MandeJa goes he is surrounded by armed
guards who never take their eyes off him.
,.
In a sense, he has exchanged one form of
prison for another, and the revolutionary
who was a threat to the state has become
the prisoner of fame and power. In the
midst of his election he lamented the fact
that he did not have time to play with his
beloved grandchildren. It is the burden of
the leadership he was born to and has
achieved.
•
a.
TIME, MAY9, 1994
~·
�TO: Gabrielle
FROM: Erin
RE: Nelson Mandela Anecdotes
171 e a\.( ·;;, n1 Ctf k_( d c.u ,-th a.
J cu ( p(ti'-/IU /w iy jO'Xi
Higher Than Hope:
,/ 1) An important part of Mandela's education came not just
from school but from listening to the elders of his tribe,
the Thembus. They spoke of the history of S. Africa and the
coming of the Europeans and the suffering that ensued. At
trials in 1962 and 1963, Mandela cited the sense of pride in
the African culture that this type of family education
instilled in him as the primary motivating factor behind his
political and social activism. (11 and 233)
1
2) In 1944, Mandela befriended three Indian students at the
Witwatersrand University (University of Witwatersrand?) in
Johannesburg. He boarded a bus with them one day and the
conductor, who was Afrikaner, demanded that Mandela get off,
saying to the three Indians, "Hey, you are not allowed to
carry a kaffir." The Indians refused to get rid of Mandela
and all four students were arrested. At the station, the
police advised Mandela to make a statement against the
Indians who had illegally "carried" him on the bus and
Mandela refused. This specific refusal to betray his
friends and his principles was an early example of the
courage and strength that Mandela has exhibited throughout
his long life.
(35)
3) In 1953, Mandela became friends with Gordon Bruce, an
insurance agent who succeeded Mandela as secretary of the
International Club, and his wife, Ursula, who was blind.
The Mandelas and the Bruces, who were white, attended church
together and also did each other special favors as needed.
One day Gordon asked Mandela if he wouldn't mind picking up
his wife after work for him. As Mandela walked Ursula to
his car, the two caused a sensation downtown, precisely
because he was a young black male escorting a white woman.
He said that he felt as if the whites that passed them
wanted to spit on him, and that "if looks could kill, I
would have been dead that day". (62)
/
4) At one protest meeting of the ANC (African National
Congress), Mandela's quick wits saved the day. An ANC
member was addressing the meeting when the police surrounded
the building they were in and entered the building,
arresting the speaker. Tempers flared in the audience and
it looked like there might be an altercation. Mandela
reacted by approaching the microphone and bursting into
revolutionary song. Slowly, the audience joined in, and the
police soon retreated, thus avoiding a major disaster. (645)
------------
�10) Another example of Mandela's courage and leadership even
in a prison atmosphere came when the police captain tried to
intimidate the prisoners. Mandela calmly stated that he
would take the captain to the "highest authority" and ruin
him financially if he persisted in carrying out his threats.
The captain was dumbfounded at the temerity of this prisoner
and even further stunned when Mandela told him that he
wouldn't allow him to do "anything outside the regulations".
Mandela's courage had the effect of showing the prison
warders that their strong-arm tactics wouldn't succeed with
him.
(218)
11) In 1972 in prison Mandela again demonstrated his great
skill for thwarting injustice. A colonel at the prison was
abusing his authority and harassing prisoners. When three
judges visited the prison, Mandela was the only one to speak
up about the abuse. The colonel then proceeded to threaten ,
Mandela in front of the judges, thereby illustrating
Mandela's point. After Mandela's complaint, the colonel was
transferred off Robben Island. This incident also
emphasizes Nelson's great concern for the welfare of others.
By speaking up at the prison he risked punishment to himself
in order to reveal the abuse that all the prisoners were
suffering.
(267)
Nelson Mandela, The Man and the Movement:
1) One of Mandela's earliest tests of his convictions came
when his guardian, the Paramount Chief, ordered him to quit
a protest boycott he was participating in at school so that
he could resume his studies. Mandela refused, partly
because his guardian had also arranged a marriage for him
without his consent. Instead, he ran away to Johannesburg
where his life would be changed forever. His decision to
leave the comfort of the Thembu was also influenced by the
fact that he was being prepared for chieftainship and did
not want "to rule over an oppressed people".
(21)
2) Political prisoners weren't allowed newspapers or news
articles to keep abreast of what was going on in the world.
This further separated them from life on the outside and the
issues that were really important to them. Mandela,
however, kept press clippings hidden in his cell, which were
eventually discovered, and he was punished.
(174)
�.
.
\
29TH DOCUMENT of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
PAGE
12
Public Papers of the Presidents
July 4, 1993
CITE: 29 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1248
LENGTH: 2138 words
HEADLINE: Remarks at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
BODY:
Thank you very much, President de Klerk, Mr. Mandela, Senator Wofford,
distinguished Members of Congress, Mayor Rendell and members of the Philadelphia
city government, Judge Higginbotham, Reverend Sullivan, my fellow Americans.
As I flew here today from Washington over the farmlands and the small towns
and the cities and I began to land here in Philadelphia, and I could see closely
Americans of all kinds enjoying the blessings of liberty and the fruits of their
labors, I couldn't help thinking that if the Founding Fathers were with us
today, they would be proud of the work that they have done.
I do want to say a special word to two distinguished Pennsylvanians who, but
for health reasons, would clearly be here with us today, a word of appreciation
to them with whom I talked ju~t a few months ago, your brave Governor, Bob
Casey, engaged in his heroic struggle; we all wish him well, and your
distinguished Senator, Arlen Specter, who promised me he would be back to work
soon. He did not promise me a vote, however.
[Laughter]
On this, our Nation's birthday in our Nation's birthplace, all of us are part
of a truly historic occasion as we welcome these two leaders in the journey to
nonracial democracy in South Africa. Here they stand together, the head of
state and the former political prisoner. We honor the dedication, the dignity,
and the discipline of the ANC president, Nelson Mandela, who walked out of
prison after 27 years, astonishingly still unbowed, unbroken, and unembittered.
And we salute President de Klerk for his wisdom and his determination in moving
to dismantle the destructive system of apartheid and his courage in asking his
people to give up something that they have which is not fully legitimate so that
they can live together in real harmony, real freedom, and real liberty. That,
too, is an act of courage we should honor.
I believe that in their common endeavors they are working together to
liberate all South Africans, to restore material wealth, and to bring spiritual
health to their beloved country. Many Americans have stood for the cause of
freedom in South Africa and now I tell you both: The United States stands ready
to help the people of South Africa as they move forward on the journey of
democracy.
Here where our own democracy is born, the United States today reaches out a
helping hand to those who would build democracy in South Africa. We stand ready
to help with voter education. We stand ready to help to heal the cruel legacies
of apartheid, from unemployment to poor housing to inadequate education. We
want to be your partner. This week when I travel to the summit of the world's
leading industrial nations, I will work to include a new and democratic South
Africa in the world economy and our common commitment to it.
�)
Public Papers of the Presidents, July 4, 1993
PAGE
13
And closer to home, my fellow Americans, we must rejoice today in the
historic accord reached late last evening to restore democracy and its elected
leader, President Aristide, to Haiti. This agreement is a tribute to the
dedicated efforts of the United Nations, the OAS, and the United States
negotiators and to the resilience of the democratic idea and the commitment of
the Haitian people to that idea.
I want to say a special word of thanks to all the Members of Congress,
including the Congressional Black Caucus who worked so hard to put the United
States on the side of democracy in Haiti. This is their victory, too. I called
President Aristide this morning to express my congratulations and my
appreciation for his signing the peace accord, and he and I agreed that today we
could both wish each other happy Independence Day.
Earlier today, as Americans have done for 217 years, I had the honor of
participating with two young children, who are direct descendants of our
founders, in ringing the Liberty Bell. When that bell first tolled, it rang
with the moral force of the most powerful common idea humanity has ever known:
the idea that each of us stands equal before God and must therefore be equal
before the law; the idea that our human dignity is given to us not by any
government but by God; the idea that we must be citizens, not subjects, proud
participants in the democratic process of governing ourselves and building our
own future.
It is that which we celebrate and hope for in South Africa, in
Haiti, and throughout the rest of the world today and that which we must still
work to perfect in our own Nation today. Because, even after 217 years, no one
would say we have got it entirely right yet.
Still, none can deny that this Nation has survived and succeeded for more
than two centuries because at every crucial moment we have had the courage to
change, to make difficult but necessary decisions, and still to be faithful to
the unchanging ideals which gave birth to us. Thomas Jefferson wrote that
blistering Declaration of Independence knowing that his ideals challenged his
country to change. He thought of the immorality of slavery in America when he
wrote, 11 I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just. 11 When Abraham
Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, he gave our Nation's bloodiest
conflict a sacred, moral purpose, to turn the promises of the Declaration and
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights into living realities for all our
people.
It is a struggle we are still waging. Still, we struggle to live in a way
that will please a just God. Still, we struggle to live in a way that we can
secure for every American, without regard to race or region or station in life,
the blessing of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Still, we struggle
to find ways to extend a helping hand of freedom to people throughout the world.
No less than those who founded our Republic or fought to keep it together in the
Civil War, we too, must have the vision and courage to change, to preserve our
unchanging purposes in a dynamic and difficult world.
This is not just another nation that we live in. It is the noblest effort at
self-government and continuous change the world has ever known. Here, people
from every continent and every country come, believing that they can build a new
life for themselves and a better future for their children. America embodies
the idea that a nation can be built by the people of every other nation and
still be a beacon of hope and inspiration to the world and still prove that out
of all that diversity can become a deeper strength and unity founded on the
�\
Public Papers of the Presidents, July 4, 1993
PAGE
14
ideals that we celebrate on the Fourth of July.
To keep that promise, we must continue to lead the world, not only
politically and morally but economically as well. And all of you know, my
fellow Americans, that is our great challenge today, when most of our people are
worried about their own jobs and their own incomes, the security of their health
care, the safety of their streets, the educational future of their children, the
challenges to our deepest values here in our own homes, and the challenges to
our position around the world.
The brave band who invented our country 217 years ago faced a difficult
future with hope. Today, we are bombarded constantly with the magnitude and
complexity of our problems, with the foibles of our problem-sovlers, with the
message that things may not be able to get better. Too many people are gripped
by doubt when we need confidence. They are gripped y cynicism when we need hope
and faith and conviction.
My fellow Americans, on this Fourth of July look at these two men standing
here making world history. Cynicism is a luxury the American people cannot
afford. Of course, there is much to question and to worry about. But I ask you
to remember here today, this Nation has endured and triumphed over a bloody
Civil War, two World Wars, the Great Depression, the civil rights struggle,
riots in our streets, economic problems, and social discord at home and great
challengers abroad. And we are still here, still leading the way, still looking
toward tomorrow. Cynicism is a luxury we cannot afford. It defeats us before
we begin. It is our job to carry on this great tradition.
Make no mistake about it, as long as we have faith in the future and the
courage to change, our Nation is still unstoppable. I believe we have a future
where our ideas continue to be the inspiration for the world, where our system
continues to be a model for the world, where our economy, if we do what we need
to do, can once again be the envy of the world. All around us, democracy and
markets are on the rise, a new global economy is emerging, and we welcome the
challenges that it brings. This new economy is built on innovation. But
America has always been the home of the great inventors, from Philadelphia's own
Ben Franklin to the geniuses today who build new computer hardware and write
software in their basements and garages.
The new economy is built on education. And America has always been a home to
education, from Thomas Jefferson, from those to the wonderful universities in
this great city who educate our young people there and reach out to those in the
inner-city schools. The new economy is built on flexibility and change. We
are, my friends, a nation born in revolution and renewed through constant
change. We can do what we have to do today to renew the American dream.
The genius of our democracy is that we the people are capable of
self-government, capable of difficult choices, capable of making the changes
that each time demands. Through the miracle of democracy, we are attempting to
do just that today, to gain control of our economic destiny, reduce our terrible
budget deficit, invest in our future, and do it in a way that is fair and that
will work.
In just a couple of days, I will go to Tokyo to represent all of you in a
meeting of the world's great industrial nations to work with them to get this
economy moving again and to create jobs and opportunity for our people and for
�PAGE
15
Public Papers of the Presidents, July 4, 1993
theirs as well. We will be able to go there with our heads held high because,
for all of our difficult problems, we are moving: almost a million new jobs in
1993, lower interest rates at home, and a sense that things can get better if we
keep at it. After long periods of division and denial, we are as a people
rising to the occasion to put our house in order. And now we can say with an
outstretched hand of friendship to our friends: We have made tough choices; so
must you. And together, we can offer opportunity to our people again. Let us
stop pointing the finger of blame and assume responsibility and lift the human
natures and the-human potential of people throughout the world. That is the job
we will face in Tokyo.
My fellow Americans, in the shadow of this building let us remember that
once, here, patriots and visionaries pledged their lives, their fortunes, and
their sacred honor. Today I tell you that we must pledge ourselves to make sure
this changing world changes fundamentally for the better. Old injustices are
ending; new opportunities and challenges are emerging. And together, we can
make the· years ahead the best years our Nation has ever had if we can rise above
cynicism and doubt, if we can see through the siren's songs of the easy answers
of the moment, if we can remember that from the beginning our people have always
known that Government could not solve all the problems and that all citizens had
to be responsible to build this Nation together.
Today we celebrate these two leaders who have advanced the cause of freedom
in South Africa and, to be sure, they have advanced the cause of freedom
throughout the world. Tonight, from parks and waterfronts, in backyards, all of
us here in America will see our skies brightened by the celebration of our own
freedom. It will lift the spirits of people throughout this country and
throughout the world who yet yearn to see and breathe and fell that freedom.
Let this celebration remind us that democracy is a promise for each of us to
keep, a promise to be Americans in the best sense of the word, to be citizens,
not spectators, to do the best we can in our families, our jobs, our
communities, to shoulder the burden of responsibility, not point the finger of
blame. This was the promise our founders made in this place on this day two
centuries ago. To keep that tradition, we must be believers and builders. And
so must we be every day, starting here, right now, today. Let us resolve to do
it.
God bless you, and God bless America.
NOTE: The President spoke at 5:10 p.m. In his remarks, he referred to Mayor
: Edward G. Rendell of Philadelphia; Judge A. Leon Higginbotham, retired, Third
Circuit Court of Appeals; Reverend Leon Sullivan, founder and president of
Opportunities Industrialization Center and leader in the antiapartheid movement.
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE-MDC: December 6, 1993
�3. DEFIANCE CAMPAIGN, 1951
3(a) 'NO EASY WALK TO FRBBDOM'
Presidenti41 address by Mandela 10 the ANC (Transvaal) Conference, 21
September 1953. Elected ANC (Tra'""aal) President earlier in the year,
M4ndela had been serrJed fliith a banning order subsequently and the address
was therefore read on his behalf.
Since 1912 and year after year thereafter, in their homes and local areas, in
provincial and national gatherings, on trains and buses, in the factories and on the
farms, in cities, villages, shanty towns, scbools and prisons, the Mrican people
have discussed the shameful misdeeds of those who rule the country. Year after
year, they have raised their voices in condemnation of the grinding poverty of the
people, the low wages, the acute shortage of land, the inhuman exploitation and
the whole policy of white domination. But instead of more freedom, repression
·· ;.began to grow in volume and inteDsity and it seemed that all their sacrifices would
'·end up in smoke and dust. Today the entire country knows that their labours
:were not in vain, for a new spirit and new ideas have gripped our people. Today
the people speak the language of action: there is a mighty awakening among the
men and women of our country and the year 1952 stands out as the year of this
upsurgeofnationalconsciousn~
In June, 1952, the Mrican National Congress and the South African Indian
Congress, bearing in mind their responsibility as the representatives of the downtrodden and oppressed people of South Mrica, took the plunge and launched the
Campaign for the Defiance of the Unjust Laws. Starting off in Port Elizabeth in
the early hours of 26 June and with only 33 defiers in action and then in
Johannesburg in the afternoon of the same day with 106 defiers, it spread
throughout the country like wildfire. Factory and office workers, doctors,
lawyers, teachers, students and the clergy: Mricans, Coloureds, Indians and
Europeans, old and young, all nllied to the national call and defied the pass laws
and the curfew and the railway apartheid regulations. By the end of the year,
more than 8,500 people of all races had defied. The Campaign called for
immediate and heavy sacri6ces. Workers lost their jobs, chiefs and teachers were
expelled from the service, doctors, lawyers and businessmen gave up their
practices and businesses and elected to go to jail. Defiance was a step of great
political significance. It released strong social forces which affected thousands of
our countrymen. It was an effective way of getting the masses to function politically; a powerful method of voicing our indignation against the reactionary
policies of the Government. It was one of the best ways of exerting pressure on
the Government and extremely dangerous to the stability and security of the
State. It inspired aad aroused our people from a conquered and servile community of yesmea to a militant and uncompromising band of comrades-in-arms.
The entire country was transformed into battle zones where the forces of liberation were locked in mortal conflict against those of reaction and evil. Our flag
34
�flew in every battlefield and thousands of our countrymen rallied around it. We
held the initiative and the forces of freedom were advancing on all fronts. It was
against this background and at the height of this Campaign that we held our last
annual provincial Conference in Pretoria from lOth to 12th October last year. In
a way, that Conference was a welcome reception for those who had returned
from the battlefields and a farewell to those who were still going to action. The
spirit of defiance and action dominated the entire conference.
Today we meet under totally different conditions. By the end of July last year,
the Campaign had reached a stage where it had to be suppressed by the Government or it would impose its own policies on the country.
The government launched its reactionary offensive and struck at us. Between
July last year and August this year 47leading members from both Congresses in
Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Kimberley were arrested, tried and convicted
for launching the Defiance Campaign and given suspended sentences ranging
from three months to two years on condition that they did not again participate in
the Defiance of the Unjust Laws. In November last year, a proclamation was
passed which prohibited meetings of more than ten Mricans and made it an
offence for any person to call upon an Mrican to defy. Contravention of this
proclamation carried a penalty of three years or a tine of three hundred pounds.
In March this year the Government passed the so-called Public Safety Act which
empowered it to declare a state of emergency and to create conditions which
would permit of the most ruthless and pitiless methods of suppressing our movement. Almost simultaneously, the Criminal Laws Amendment Act was passed
which provided heavy penalties for those convicted of Defiance offences. This
Act also made provision for the whipping of defiers including women. It was
under this Act thin Mr Arthur Matlala, who was the local leader of the Central
Branch during the Defiance Campaign, was convicted and sentenced to twelve
months with hard labour plus eight strokes by the Magistrate of Villa Nora.'* The
Government also made extensive use of the Suppression of Communism Act.
You will remember that in May last year the Government ordered Moses
Kotane, Yusuf Dadoo, J B Marks, David Bopape and Johnson Ngwevela to
resign from the Congresses and many other organisations and they were also
prohibited from attending political gatherings. In consequence of these bans,
Moses Kotane, J B Marks and David Bopape did not attend our last provincial
Conference. In December last year, the Secretary-General, Mr W M Sisulu, and
I were banned from attending gatherings and confined to Johannesburg for six
months. Early this year, the President General, Chief Lutuli, whilst in the midst
of a national tour which he was executing with remarkable energy and devotion,
was prohibited for a period of twelve months from attending public gatherings
and from visiting Durban, Johannesburg, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and many
other centres. A few days before the President General was banned, the President of the SAIC, Dr G M Naicker, had been served with a similar notice. Many
*A district in the North-Western Transvaal.
35
�other active workers both from the African and Indian Congresses and from
trade union organisations were also banned.
The Congresses realised that these measures created a new situation which did
not prevail when the Campaign was launched in June 1952. The tide of defiance
was bound to recede and we were forced to pause and to take stock of the new
situation. We had to analyse the dangers that faced us, formulate plans to overcome them and evolve new plans of political struggle. A political movement must
keep in touch with reality and the prevailing qmditions. Long speeches, the
shaking of fists, the banging of tables and strongly worded resolutions out of
touch with the objective conditions do not bring about mass action and can do a
great deal of harm to the organisation and the struggle we serve. We understood
·tJ:Iat the masses had to be prepared and made ready for new forms of political
struggle. We had to recuperate our strength and muster our forces for another
aild more powerful offensive against the enemy. To have gone ahead blindly as if
nothing had happened would have been suicidal and stupid. The conditions
under which we meet today are, therefore, vastly different. The Defiance
Campaign together with its thrills and adventures has receded. The old methods
of bringing about mass action through public mass meetings, press statements
and leaflets calling upon the people to go to action have become extremely
dangerous and dif&cult to use effectively. The authorities will not easily permit a
meeting called under the auspices of the ANC, few newspapers will publish
statements openly criticising the policies of the Government and there is hardly a
single printing press which will agree to print leaflets calling upon workers to
embark on industrial action for fear of prosecution under the Suppression of
Communism Act and similar measures. These developments require the evolution of new forms of political struggle which will make it reasonable for us to
strive for action on a higher level than the Defiance Campaign. The Government,
alarmed at the indomitable upsurge of national consciousness, is doing everything
in its power to crush our movement by removing the genuine representatives of
the people from the organisations. According to a statement made by Swan• in
Parliament on 18 September 1953, there are 33 trade union officials and 89 other
people who have been served with notices in terms of the Suppression of
Communism Act. This does not include that formidable array of freedom fighters
who have been named and blacklisted under the Suppression of Communism Act
and those who have been banned under the Riotous Assemblies Act.
Meanwhile the living conditions of the people, already extremely difficult, are
steadily worsening and becoming unbearable. The purchasing power of the
people is progressively declining and the cost of living is rocketing. Bread is now
dearer than it was two months ago. The cost of milk, meat and vegetables is
beyond the pockets of the average family and many of our people cannot afford
*C R Swart, .\\mist~r of }ustic~ and later first State PresJ<.lcnt of the Rcplt">l•,· ,,f South :\fncJ
36
ar•
ab
B<
dr
til·
iD·
at
P'
e>:
fr·
in
th
pl
ot
M
A.
w:
ce
y,
or
b~
y
he
S(
nc
ot
h:
cr
w
S<
f<
o:
1.
n
0
p
�them. The people are too poor to have enough food to feed their families and
children. They cannot afford sufficient clothing, housing and medical care. They
are denied the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, old age and where allowances are paid they are far too low for survival.
Because of lack of proper medical amenities our people are ravaged by such
dreaded diseases as tuberculosis, venereal disease, leprosy, pellagra, and infantile monality is very high. The recent state budget made provision for the
increase of the cost-of-living allowances for Europeans and not a word was said
about the poorest and most bard-bit section of the population - the Mrican
people. The insane poli~ies of the Government which have brought about an
explosive situation in the country have definitely scared away foreign capital
from South Mrica and the financial crisis through which the country is now passing is forcing many industrial and business concerns to close down, to retrench
their staffs and unemployment is growing every day. The farm labourers are in a
particularly dire plight. You will perhaps recall the investigations and exposures
of the semi-slave conditions on the Bethal farms made in 1948 by the Reverend
Michael Scott and a Guardian Correspondent; by the Drum last year and the
Advance in April this year. You will recall bow human beings, wearing only sacks
tvith boles for their beads and arms, never given enough food to eat, slept on
cement floors on cold nights with only their sacks to cover their shivering bodies.
You will remember how they were woken up as early as 4 am and taken to work
on the fields with the indunas sjamboking* those who tried to straighten their
backs, who felt weak and dropped down because of hunger and sheer exhaustion.
You will also recall the story of human beings toiling pathetically from the early
hours of the morning till sunset, fed only on mealie meal* served on ti.lthy sacks
spread on the ground and eating with their dirty bands. People falli.og ill and
never once being given medical attention. You will also recall the revolting story
of a farmer who was convicted for tying a labourer by his feet from a tree and
having him flogged to death, pouring boiling water into his mouth whenever be
cried for water. These things which have long vanished from many parts of the
world still flourish in South Mrica today.** None will deny that they constitute a
serious challenge to Congress and we are duty bound to ti.nd an effective remedy
for these obnoxious practices.
The Government bas introduced in Parliament the Native Labour (Settlement
of Disputes) Bill and the Bantu Education Bill. Speaking on the Labour Bill, the
Minister of Labour, Ben Scboeman, openly stated that the aim of this wicked
measure is to bleed Mrican trade unions to death. By forbidding strikes and lockouts it deprives Mricans of the one weapon the workers have to improve their
position. The aim of the measure is to destroy the present Mrican trade unions
*lnduna =foreman; sjambolt =whip; mealie meal,.. maize flour.
**These practices continue to flourish in South Afrit:a in the 19~. See for inslallce Allen Cook Akin
10 SltWny, IDAF, London, 1982.
37
�which are controlled by the workers themselves and which fight for the improvement of their working conditions, in return for a Central Native Labour Board
controlled by the Government and which will be used to frustrate the legitimate
aspirations of the African worker. The Minister of Native Affairs, Verwoerd, *
has also been brutally clear in explaining the objects of the Bantu Education Bill.
According to him the aim of this law is to teach our children that Africans are
inferior to Europeans. African education is to be taken out of the hands of people
who taught equality between black and white. When this Bill becomes law, it will
not be the parents but the Department of Native Affairs which will decide
whether an African child should receive higher or other education. It might well
be that the children of those who criticise the Government and who fight its
policies will almost certainly be taught how to drill rocks in the mines and how to
plough potatoes on the farms of Betbal. High education might well be the privilege of those children whose families have a tradition of collaboration with the
ruling settlers.
The attitude of the Congress on these bills is very clear and unequivocal.
Congress totally rejects both bills without reservation. The last provincial
Conference strongly condemned the then proposed Labour Bill as a measure
designed to rob the African workers of the universal right of free trade unionism
and to undermine and destroy the existing African trade unions. Conference
further called upon the African workers to boycott and defy the application of
this sinister scheme which was calculated to further the exploitation of the
African worker. To accept a measure of this nature even in a qualified manner
would be a betrayal of the toiling masses. At a time when every genuine Congressite should fight unreservedly for the recognition of African trade unions and the
realisation of the principle that everyone has the right to form and to join trade
unions for the protection of his interests, we declare our firm belief in the principles enunciated in tb~ Universal Declaration of Human Rights that everyone
has the right to education; that education shall be directed to the full development of human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights
and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among the nations, racial or religious groups and shall further the activities
of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. That parents have the right
to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
The cumulative effect of all these measures is to prop up and perpetuate the
artificial and decaying policy of the supremacy of the white men. The attitude of
the Government to us is that: 'Let's beat them down with guns and batons and
trample them under our feet We must be ready to drown the whole country in.
blood if only there is the slightest chance of preserving white supremacy.'
But then:: is nothing inherently superior about the herrenvolk idea of the
supremacy of the whites. In China, India, Indonesia and Korea, American,
*Dr H F Verwocrd, later Prime Minister, 195H6.
38
Briti~
of E
Mala
their
InA
Euro
powt
theF
atlol
react
comt
Tl
~
DlOVf
tbeCJ
ment
deep
bitte1
meth
certa:
stinki
Bu
victOI
and1
langu
been
bee&\
supp•
chost
impo
we tl
vidu~
vario
effor
ness.
WOUI·
Tochl
throl:
centr
�British, Dutch and French imperialism, based on the ooncept of the supremacy
of Europeans over Asians, bas been oompletely and perfectly exploded. In
Malaya and Indo-China British and French imperialisms are being shaken to
their foundations by powerful and revolutionary national liberation movements.
In Mrica, there are approximately 190 million Mricans as against four million
Europeans. The entire eontinent is seetbiq with disoontent and already there are
powerful revolutionary eruptions in the Gold Coast,* Nigeria, Tunisia, Kenya,
the Rbodesias** and South Mrica. The oppressed people and the oppressors are
at loggerheads. The day of reckoning between the forces of freedom and those of
reaction is not very far off. I have not the slightest doubt that when that day
comes truth and justice will prevail.
The intensification of repression and the extensive use of the bans are
designed to immobilise every active worker and to check the national liberation
movement. But gone forever are the days when harsh and wicked laws provided
the oppressors with years of peace and quiet. The racial policies of the Government have pricked the conscience of all men of good will and have aroused their
deepest indignation. The feelings of the oppressed people have never been more
bitter. If the ruling circles seek to maintain their position by such inhuman
methods then a clash between the forces of freedom and those of reaction is
certain. The grave plight of the people compels them to resist to the death the
stinking policies of the gangsters that rule our oountry.
But in spite of all the difficulties outlined above, we have won important
victories. The general political level of the people bas been ooosiderably raised
and they are now more oooscious of theii strength. Action bas beoome the
language of the day. The ties between the working people and the Congress bave
been greatly strengthened. This is a development of the highest importance
because in a oountry such as ours a political organisation that does not receive the
support of the workers is in fact paralysed on the very ground on which it bas
chosen to wage battle. Leaders of trade union organisations are at the same time
important officials of the provincial and local branches of the ANC. In the past
we talked of the Mrican, Indian and Coloured struggles. Though certain individuals raised the question of a united front of all the oppressed groups, the
various non-European organisations stood miles apart from one another and the
efforts of those for co-ordination and unity were like a voice crying in the wilderness and it seemed that the day would never dawn when the oppressed people
would stand and fight together shoulder to shoulder against a oommon enemy.
Today we talk of the struggle of the oppressed people which, though it is waged
through their respective autonomous organisations, is gravitating towards one
central command.
*Now Ghana.
**Southern Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, and Northern Rhodesia, now Zambia.
39
�Our immediate task is to consolidate these victories, to preserve our organisations and to muster our forces for the resumption of the offensive. To achieve
this important task the National Executive of the ANC in consultation with the
National Action Committee of the ANC and the SAIC formulated a plan of
action popularly known as the 'M' Plan, and the highest importance is attached to
it by the National Executive. Instructions were given to all provinces to
implement the 'M' Plan without delay.*
The underlying principle of this plan is the undentanding that it is no longer
possible to wage our struggle mainly on the old methods of public meetings and
printed circulan. The aim is:
( 1) to consolidate the Congress machinery;
(2) to enable the transmission of important decisions taken on a national level
to every member of the organisation without calling public meetings, issuing
press statements and printing circulan;
. . (3) .to build up in the local branches themselves local Congresses which will
effec;:tively represent the strength and will of the people;
(§)to extend and strengthen the ties between Congress and the people and to
COQsolidate Congress leadenbip.
This plan is being implemented in many branches, not only in the Transvaal
but also in other provinces, and is producing excellent results. The Regional
Conferences held in Sopbiatown, Germiston, Kliptown and Benoni on 28 June,
23 and 30 August and on 6 September 1953, which were attended by large
~wds, are a striking demonstration of the effectiveness of this plan, and the
National Executive must be complimented for iL I appeal to all memben of the
Congress to redouble their efforts and play their part truly and well in its implementation. The bard and strenuous task of recruiting memben and strengthening
our organisation through a house-to-house campaign in every locality must be
done by you all. From now on the activity of Congressites must not be confined to
speeches and resolutions. Their activities must find expression in wide-scale
work among the masses, work which will enable them to make the greatest possible contact with the working people. You must protect and defend your trade
unions. If you are not allowed to bave your meetings publicly, then you must
hold them over your mac:biDes in the factories, on the trains and buses as you
travel home. You must bave them in your villages and shantytowns. You must
make every home, every aback and every mud structure where our people live, a
branch of the trade union movement and you must never surrender.
You must defend the right of African parents to decide the kind of education
that aball be given to their children. Teach the children that Africans are not one
iota inferior to Europeans. Establish your own community schools where the
*Ill an cffon to strengthen and decentralise ANC organisation, Mandela was responsible for the
implemeDtatioa of a plan, named after bim8elf as 'the M Plan', to build a mass membership organised
tbroup c:eUs at the grassroots level and tbroup a hierarchy of leaden at intermediate level, responsive
to direction without the necessity for public meetings.
40
!;,.·
·~·~{
·~tt
.].. :
right~
impos
home,
Neve1
Th•
wider
dayb
CODtrt
factor
cllara•
from··
iaforr
need
Wbcrt
turDe
Lebal
naaUJ
spy c
Johar
were
are s
prove
areir
bigbl:
listell
imme
disciI
readi
mattt
the '
creat.
oppo
char<
weal!
and'
cons1
an o:
COOS!
revo:
ofth
oppr
&ion
man
�right kind of education will be given to our children. If it becomes dangerous or
impossible to have these alternative schools, then again you must make every
home, every shack or rickety structure a centre of learning for our children.
Never surrender to the inhuman and barbaric theories of Verwoerd.
The decision to defy the unjust laws enabled Congress to develop considerably
wider contacts between itself and the masses and the urge to join Congress grew
day by day. But due to the fact that the local branches did not exercise proper
control and supervision, the admission of new members was not carried out satisfactorily. No careful examination was made of their past history and political
characteristics. As a result of this, there were many shady characters ranging
from political clowns, place-seekers, splitters, saboteurs, agents provocateurs to
informers ~d even policemen, who iniltrated into the ranks of Congress. One
need only refer to the Johannesburg trial of Dr Moroka and nineteen others,
where a member of Congress who actually worked at the National Headquarters,
turned out to be a detective-sergeant on special duty. Remember the case of
Leballo of Brakpan who wormed himself uito that Branch by producing faked
naming letters from the Liquidator, De Villicrs Louw, who had instructions to
spy on us. There are many other similar instances that emerged during the
Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Kimberley trials. Whilst some of these men
were discovered there are many who have not been found out. In Congress there
are still many shady characters, political clowns, place-seekers, saboteurs,
provocateurs, informers and policemen who masquerade as progressives but who
are in fact the bitterest enemies of our organisation. Outside appearances are
highly deceptive and we cannot classify these men by looking at their faces or by
listening to their sweet tongues or their vehement speeches demanding
immediate action. The friends of the people are distinguishable by the ready and
disciplined manner in which they rally behind their organisations and their
readiness to sacrifice when the preservation of the organisation bas become a
matter of life and death. Similarly, enemies and shady characters are detected by
the extent to which they consistendy attempt to wreck the organisation by
creating fratricidal strife, disseminating confusion and undermining and even
opposing important plans of action to vitalise the organisation. These shady
characters, by means of flattery, bribes and corruption, win the support of the
weak-willed and politically backward individuals, detach them from Congress
and use them in their own interests. The presence of such elements in Congress
constitutes a serious threat to the struggle, for the capacity for political action of
an organisation which is ravaged by such disruptive and splitting elements is
considerably undermined. Here in South Africa, as in many parts of the world, a
revolution is maturing; it is the profound desire, the determination and the urge
of the overwhelming majority of the country to destroy for ever the shackles of
oppression that condemn them to servitude and slavery. To overthrow oppression has been sanctioned by humanity and is the highest aspiration of every free
man. If elements in our organisation seek to impede the realisation of this lofty
41
�·. -~·
purpose then these people have placed themselves outside the organisation and
must be put out of action before they do more harm. To do otherwise would be a
crime and a serious neglect of duty. We must rid ourselves of such elements and
give our organisation the striking power of a real militant mass organisation.
Kotane, Marks, Bopape, Tloome and I have been banned from attending
gatherings and we cannot join and counsel with you on the serious problems that
are facing our country. We have been banned because we champion the freedom
of the oppressed people of our country and because we have consistently fought
against the policy of racial discrimiDation in favour of a policy which accords
fundamental human rights to all, irrespective of race, colour, sex or language.
We are exiled from our own people for we have uncompromisingly resisted the
. ~orts of imperialist America and her satellites to drag the world into the rule of
vidlence and brutal force, into the rule of the napalm, hydrogen and the cobalt
bombs where millions of people will be wiped out to satisfy the criminal and
greedy appetites of the imperial powers. We have been gagged because we have
emphatically and openly condemned the criminal attacks by the imperialists
against the people of Malaya, Vietnam, Indonesia, Tunisia and Tanganyika* and
called upon our people to identify themselves unreservedly with the cause of
world peace and to fight against the war policies of America and her satellites. We
·. are being shadowed, hounded and trailed because we fearlessly voiced our horror
·.and indignation at the slaughter of the people of Korea and Kenya, because we
expressed our solidarity with the cause of the Kenyan people. The massacre of
the Kenyan people by Britain has aroused world-wide indignation and protest.
Children are being burnt alive, women are raped, tortured, whipped and boiling
water poured on their breasts to force confessions from them that Jomo Kenyana
bad administered the Mau Mau oath to them. Men are being castrated and shot
dead. In the Kikuyu country there are some villages in which the population bas
been completely wiped out We are prisoners in our own country because we
dared to raise our voices against these horrible auocities and because we
expressed our solidarity with the cause of the Kenyan people.
You can see that 'there is no easy walk to freedom anywhere, and many of us
will have to pass through the valley of the shadow of death again and again before
we reach the mountain tops of our desires.
'Dangers and difficulties have not deterred u, in the past, they will not
frighten us now. But we must be prepared for them like men who mean business
who do not waste energy in vain talk and idle action. The way of preparation for
action lies in our rooting out all impurity and indiscipline from our organisation
and making it the bright and shining instrument that will cleave its way to
Africa's freedom.'**
*Now Tanzania.
**The quotation is taken and adapted from an artide hv :o-;ehru m The Umry o( b1dlu: Co/1,·.-r.-J
Writings 1937-40, Lindsay Drummond, London, 1942, r.l3!.
42
...
Tlti.D
Gllli·'IG&i
··';
. ~·.
Ccmps
tUCUIMI
Liberal j
,.,.fl.
dull :tf 1·
J(tt). '
Allie.
The Lii
bUDIID
fuodaln
beins tl
npl8C
The
general
applica
penon
democ:
bere t1
explici
SUITAI
long e
'suita~
Tbt
ctif{er
altem:
Natio1
Demc.
Chart
dema1
In
camr
politi
acute
I
'
1
I
'
�11. mE RIVONIA TRIAL, 1963-64
On 11 July police raided a farm til .RitHntia, near Johannesburg, and arreJted
woeral senior members of the Co,-ess Alliance. On 9 October 1963 ten men
appeared in court on charges of sabo~~~ge, among them Mandela, mho mas
brought from prison to lt4nd trial as the fmt aa:rued.
The State alleged that the accused had embarlled on a campaip to ti'Dmlartlfl)
the gti'Demmenl by 'Diolent refJolution. There mere four charges under security
legislation: the Sab0111ge Aa, the Suppression of Communism Aa and the
Criminal Law Amendment Aa. The cltarge sheet listed 193 acts of sabOIIlge
committed betfDeen 27 June 1962 and the d4u of the RifHmia raid, alkgedly
carried out by persons recruited by the aa:rued in their capacity as members of
the High Command of Umklumto.
Charges against one of the aa:rued were ltller withdrawn, and another was
acquilted til the conclusion of the trial.
~,
Mandela chose not to groe eW:lence in his own defence or be cross-examined, but
· only to make a statemenz.
,,
. ll(a) SECOND COURT STATEMENT, 1964*
Mandela 's statemenz from the dock in Pretorio. Supreme Court, 20 April 1964,
at the opening of the defence case.
I am the first accused.
I hold a Bachelor's Degree in Arts and practised as an anomey in
Johannesburg for a number of years in partnenhip with Oliver Tambo. I am a
convicted prisoner serving five yean for leaving the country without a permit and
for inciting people to go on strike at the end of May 1961.
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 foreignen or communists 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 backpound, and not because of what any outsider might
have said.
In my youth in the Transkei I listened to the elden of my tribe telling stories
of the old days. Amoopt the tales they related to me were those of wan fought
by our anceston in defence of the fatherland. The names of Dingane and
Bambata, Hintsa and Makana, Squngthi and Dalasile, Moshoeshoe and
Sekbukhuni, were praised as the glory of the entire African nation. I hoped then
that life might offer me the opportunity to serve my people and make my own
bumble contribution to their freedom struggle. This is what bas motivated me in
all that I have done in relation to the charges made against me in this case.
*It ia customary to omit sec:tiona of this statement which deal in detail with points of evidence made by
IIIIDe wimeuea. These were clearly imponant at the time in the trial, but bave little meaning for
readers today, and only serve to lessen the impact of the statement as a wbole. As in die previous
edition of this book, this CUitOIII ia followed here.
161
�Having said this, I must deal immediately and at some length with the question
of violence. Some of the things so far told to the coun are true and some are
untrue. I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a
spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a
result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that bad arisen
after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the
Whites.
I admit immediately that I was one of the persons who helped to form
Umkbonto we Sizwe, and that I played a prominent role in its affairs until I was
arrested in August 1962.
In the statement which I am about to make I shall correct certain false
impre,sions which have been created by State witnesses. Amongst other things, I
wiltft(lemonstrate that certain of the acts referred to in the evidence were not and
coqfd not have been commined by Umkbonto. I will also deal with the relationship between the African National Congress and Umkbonto, and with the part
which I personally have played in the affairs of both organisations. I shall deal
also with the part played by the Communist Party. In order to explain these
maners properly, I will have to explain what Umkbonto set out to achieve; what
methods it prescribed for the achievement of these objects, and why these
·methods were chosen. I will also have to explain bow I became involved in the
'activities of these organisations.
· I deny that Umkbonto was responsible for a number of acts which clearly fell
outside the policy of the organisation, and which have been charged in the indictment against us. I do not know what justification there was for these acts, but to
demonstrate that they could not have been authorised by Umkbonto, 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 to form
Umkbonto. 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 bad become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given
to canalise and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of
terrorism which would produce an intensity of binemess and hostility between
the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly,
we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people
to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful
modes of expressing opposition to this principle bad been closed by legislation,
and we were placed in a position in which we bad either to accept a permanent
state of inferiority, or to defy the government. We chose to defy the law. We first
broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form
was legislated against, and then the government resorted to a show of force to
crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with
violence.
But the violence which we chose to adopt was not terrorism. We who formed
Umkhonto were all members of the African National Congress, and had behind
162
'!:'
f~i,...
f)!£;.
J,J•
,.
us the A
political (
in it, and
war, and
will be se
and what
decidedt
Congreis
TheA
African r
which W•
years-1
forward'
beliefth:
that Afri·
ments rc
becominl
Presiden·
Prize:~
vain, pat
have bee:
numberl
stagewh'
Even:
time, ho·
protest v
decision
unlawful
launched
This can
8,500 pe
instance
19
cone~
campaig1
that disci
when th•
'Amadel:
to take a
and thei
context.
pledged
workers
leaflets,
*Amadelai
�t
~
I
'
'
'
us the ANC tradition of non-violence and negotiation as a means of solving
political disputes. We believe that South Africa belongs to all the people who live
in it, and not to one group, be it black or white. We did not want an inter-racial
war, and tried to avoid it to the last minute. If the coun is in doubt about this, it
will be seen that the whole history of our organisation bears out what I have said,
and what I will subsequently say, when I describe the tactics which Umkbonto
decided to adopt. I want, therefore, to say something about the African National
Congress.
The African National Congress was formed in 1912 to defend the rights of the
Mrican people which bad been seriously cunailed by the South Africa Act, and
which were then being threatened by the Native Land Act. For thirty-seven
years -that is, unti11949 - it adhered strictly to a constitutional struggle. It put
forward demands and resolutions; it sent delegations to the government in the
belit!f that African grievances could be settled through peaceful discussion and
that AJ;icans could advance gradually to full political rights. But White govemments!J;emained unmoved, and the rights of Africans became less instead of
becoming greater. In the words of my leader, Chief Lutuli, who became
President of the ANC in 1952, and who was later awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize: 'Who will deny that thirty years of my life have been spent knocking in
vain, patiently, moderately, and modestly at a closed and barred door? What
have been the fruits of moderation? The past thirty years have seen the greatest
number of laws restricting our rights and progress, until today we have reached a
saige where we have almost no rights at all.'
Even after 1949, the ANC remained determined to avoid violence. At this
time, however, there was a change from the strictly constitutional means of
protest which had been employed in the past. The change was embodied in a
decision which was taken to protest against apartheid legislation by peaceful, but
unlawful, demonstrations against certain laws. Pursuant to this policy the ANC
launched the Defiance Campaign, in which I was placed in charge of volunteers.
This campaign was based on the principles of passive resistance. More than
8,500 people defied apartheid laws and went to jail. Yet there was not a single
instance of violence in the course of this campaign on the part of any defier. I and
19 colleagues were convicted for the role which we played in organising the
campaign, but our sentences were suspended mainly because the Judge found
that discipline and non-violence bad been stressed throughout. This was the time
when the volunteer section of the ANC was established, and when the word
'Amadelakufa'* was first used: this was the time when the volunteers were asked
to take a pledge to uphold certain principles. Evidence dealing with volunteers
and their pledges bas been introduced into this case, but completely out of
context. The volunteers were not, and are not, the soldiers of a black army
pledged to fight a civil war against the whites. They were, and are, dedicated
workers who are prepared to lead campaigns initiated by the ANC to distribute
leaflets, to organise strikes, or do whatever the particular campaign required.
*Amadclakufa =those who are prepared to make sacrifices.
163
�They are called volunteers because they volunteer to face the penalties of
imprisonment and whipping which are now prescribed by the legislature for such
acts.
During the Defiance Campaign, the Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law
Amendment Act were passed. These statutes provided harsher penalties for
offences committed by way of protest~ against laws. Despite this, the protests
continued and the ANC adhered to its policy of non-violence. In 1956, 156
leading members of the Congress Alliance, including myself, were arrested on a
charge of high treason and charges UDder tbe Suppression of Communism Act
The non-violent policy of the ANC was put in issue by the State, but when the
court gave judgement some five yean later, it found that the ANC did not have a
policy of violence. We were acquitted on an counts, which included a count that
tft=NC sought to set up a communist state in place of the existing regime. The
go rnment bas always sought to label an its opponents as communists. This
all' ation bas been repeated in tbe presem case but, as I will show, the ANC is
n~ and never bas been a communist organisation.
In 1960 there was the shooting at Sbarpeville, which resulted in the proclamation of a state of emergency and the declaration of the ANC as an unlawful
organisation. My colleagues and I, after careful consideration, decided that we
. would not obey this decree. The African people were not part of the government
\and did not make the laws by which they were governed. We believed in the
words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that 'the will of the people
sball be the basis of authority of the Government', and for us to accept the
banning was equivalent to ac:cepting the silencing of the Africans for all time.
The ANC refused to dissolve, but instead went underground. We believed it was
our duty to preserve this organisation, which bad been built up with almost fifty
years of unremitting toil. I have no doubt that no self-respecting White political
organisation would disband itself if declared illegal by a government in which it
bad no say.
In 1960 the government held a referendum which led to the establishment of
the republic. Africans, who constituted approximately 70 per cent of the
population of South Africa, were not entitled to vote, and were not even
consulted about the proposed constitutional change. All of us were apprehensive
of our future under the proposed White republic, and a resolution was taken to
bold an All-in African Conference to call for a National Convention, and to
organise mass demonstraticma on the eve of the unwanted republic, if the government failed to call the convention. The conference was anended by Africans of
various political persuasions. I was the Secretary of the conference and undertook to be responsible for organising the national stay-at-home which was subsequently called to coincide with the declaration of the republic. As all strikes by
Afriama are illegal, the person organising such a strike must avoid arrest. I was
chosen to be this person, and consequently I bad to leave my home and family
and my practice and go into biding to avoid arrest.
The stay-at-home, in accordance with ANC policy, was to be a peaceful
164
rJ-_·
~:
demonst;
avoid an:
aDd bars
vehicles,
intimidat
rule byf·
Some
irrelcvan
CVCDt1181)
bDCratiol
of life Bh·
I must
Were w(
action, 01
WebB
been abj·
continue
and we~
they alrc
brought·
andfewe
is a fact t
when the
leaders c
violence:
and June
State by
beginnini
ofterrori
It mus
feature o
when the
1958 wit
violence
there wa
Authoriti
1961 the1
a seethin
growth a
showed t
oppresse•
areas and
There n
•saracen
a:
�demonstration. Careful instructions were given to organisers and members to
·.avoid any recoune to violence. The government's answer was to introduce new
and banher laws, to mobilise its armed forces, and to send Saracens, • armed
vehicles, and soldiers into the townships in a massive show of force designed to
intimidate the people. This was an indication that the government bad decided to
rule by force alone, and this decision was a milestone on the road to Umkhonto.
Some of this may appear irrelevant to this trial. In fact, I believe none of it is
irrelevant because it will, I hope, enable the alun to appreciate the attitude
eventually adopted by the various persons and bodies alncemed in the national
liberation movement. When I went to jail in 1962, the dominant idea was that loss
of life should be avoided. I now know that this was still so in 1963.
I must return to June 1961. What were we, the leaders of our people, to do?
Were we to give in to the show of force and the implied threat against future
action, b~were we to fight it and, if so, how?
We ba ·no doubt that we bad to alntinue the fight. Anything else would have
been abj 'ct surrender. Our problem was not whether to fight, but was how to
continue the fight. We of the ANC bad always stood for a non-racial democracy,
and we shrank from any action which might drive the races further apart than
they already were. But the bard facts were that fifty years of non-violence bad
brought the Mrican people nothing but more and more repressive legislation,
and fewer and fewer rights. It may not be easy for this coun to understand, but it
is a fact that for a long time the people bad been talking of violence - of the day
when they would fight the White man and win back their country -and we, the
leaders of the ANC, bad nevertheless always prevailed upon them to avoid
violence and to pursue peaceful methods. When some of us discussed this in May
and June of 1961, it could not be denied that our policy to achieve a non-racial
State by non-violence bad achieved nothing, and that our followers were
beginning to lose alnfidence in this policy and were developing disturbing ideas
of terrorism.
It must not be forgotten that by this time violence bad, in fact, become a
feature of the South Mrican political scene. There bad been violence in 1957
when the women of Zeerust were ordered to carry passes; there was violence in
1958 with the enforcement of cattle culling in Sekhukhuniland; there was
violence in 1959 when the people of Cato Manor protested against pass raids;
there was violence in 1960 when the government attempted to impose Bantu
Authorities in Pondoland. Thirty-nine Mricans died in these disturbances. In
1961 there bad been riots in Warmbaths, and all this time the Transkei bad been
a seething mass of unrest. Each disturbance pointed clearly to the inevitable
growth among Mricans of the belief that violence was the only way out - it
showed that a government which uses force to maintain its rule teaches the
oppressed to use force to oppose it. Already small groups bad arisen in the urban
areas and were spontaneously making plans for violent forms of political struggle.
There now arose a danger that these groups would adopt terrorism against
*Saracen armoured vehicles: British-made military troop carriers.
165
�Mricans, as well as Whites, if not properly directed. Particularly disturbing was
the type of violence engendered in places spch as Zeerust, Selthulthuniland, and
Pondoland amongst Mricans. It was increasingly taking the form, not of struggle
against the government - though this is what prompted it - but of civil strife
amongst themselves, conducted in such a way that it could not hope to achieve
anything other than a loss of life and bitterness.
At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of the
South Mrican situation, I and some colleagues came to the conclusion that, as
violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for
Mrican leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the
government met our peaceful demands with force.
This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It was only when all else had failed,
when aU channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was
made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we
Sizwe. We did so not because we desired such a course, but solely because the
government had left us with no other choice. In the manifesto of Umlthonto,
• ·~·lished on 16 December 1961, which is Exhibit AD, we said: 'The time comes
the life of any nation when there remain only two choices - submit or fight.
at time has now come to South Mrica. We shall not submit and we have no
,Choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defence of our people, our
'future, and our freedom.'
This was our feeling in June of 1961 when we decided to press for a change in
the policy of the national liberation movement. I can only say that I felt morally
obliged to do what I did.
We who had taken this decision staned to consult leaders of various organisations, including the AN C. I will not say whom we spoke to, or what they said, but
. I wish to deal with the role of the Mrican National Congress in this phase of the
struggle, and with the policy and objectives of Umkhonto we Sizwe.
As far as the ANC was concerned, it formed a clear view which can be
summarised as follows:
(a) It was a mass political organisation with a political function to fulfil. Its
members had joined on the express policy of non-violence.
(b) Because of aU this, it could not and would not undertake violence. This
must be stressed. One cannot tum such a body into the small, closely knit
organisation required for sabotage. Nor would this be politically correct,
because it would result in members ceasing to carry out this essential
activity: political propaganda and organisation. Nor was it permissible to
change the whole nature of the organisation.
(c) On the other band, in view of this situation I have described, the ANC was
prepared to depart from its fifty-year-old policy of non-violence to this
extent that it would no longer disapprove of properly controlled violence.
Hence members who undertook such activity would not be subject to
disciplinary action by the ANC.
166
ha)
orpoi~
and we
withou
violeoc
As a
we tool
of non·
C:OUDtr)
eadl.OI
destruc
more d;
history
South J
the 8C81
oflifeo
The
when w
mishto.
acc:oUDt
which p
the plan
decision
war, but
Four
warfare,
first meti
In the
did DOt i:
Bitterne~
govemm
what we
'Weo1
bloodshe
will awal
Natiooali
supporte.
policiesc
The in
situation
extent on
power pt
tend tosc
*The Anglo
�'pl'lopc:rly controlled violence' because I made it clear that if I formed the
•IIJlisati<ID I would at aU times subject it to the politica1 guidance of the ANC
would not undertake any different form of activity from that contemplated
the consent of the ANC. And I shall now tell the coun how that form of
31i~~~ came to be determined.
a result of this decision, Umkhonto was formed in November 1961. When
took this decision, and subsequently formulated our plans, the ANC heritage
non-violence and racial harmony was very much with us. We felt that the
was drifting towards a civil war in which blacks and whites would fight
We viewed the situation with alarm. Civil war could mean the
r..structic•n of what the ANC stood for; with civil war, racial peace would be
difficult than ever to achieve. We already have examples in South African
of the results of war. It has taken more than fifty years for the scars of the
African War* to disappear. How much longer would it take to eradicate
the scars-of U:lter-racial civil war, which could not be fought without a great loss
oflife on ~th sides?
The avqjdance of civil war had dominated our thinking for many years, but
when we decided to adopt violence as part of our policy, we realised that we
might one' day have to face the prospect of such a war. This had to be taken into
account in formulating our plans. We required a plan which was flexible and
which permitted us to act in accordance with the needs of the times; above aU,
the plan had to be one which recognised civil war as the last resort, and left the
decision on this question to the future. We did not want to be committed to civil
war, but we wanted to be ready if it became inevitable.
Four forms of violence were possible. There is sabotage, there is guerrilla
warfare, there is terrorism, and there is open revolution. We chose to adopt the
6rst method and to exhaust it before taking any other decision.
In the light of our political background the choice was a logical one. Sabotage
did not involve loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations.
• Bitterness would be kept to a minimum and, if the policy bore fruit, democratic
government could become a reality. This is what we felt at the time, and this is
what we said in our manifesto (Exhibit AD):
'We of Umkhonto we Sizwe have always sought to achieve liberation without
· bloodshed and civil clash. We hope, even at this late hour, that our first actions
will awaken everyone to a realisation of the disastrous situation to which the
. :· Nationalist policy is leading. We hope that we will bring the government and its
supporters to their senses before it is too late, so that both the government and its
policies can be changed before matters reach the desperate stage of civil war.'
The initial plan was based on a careful analysis of the political and economic
situation of our country. We believed that South Africa depended to a large
extent on foreign capital and foreign trade. We felt that planned destruction of
power plants, and interference with rail and telephone communications, would
tend to scare away capital from the country, make it more difficult for goods from
*The Anglo-Boer War ofl899-1902.
167
�the industrial areas to reach the seaports on schepule, and would in the long run
be a heavy drain on the economic life of the country, thus compelling the voters
of the country to reconsider their position.
Attacks on the economic lifelines of the country were to be linked with
sabotage on government buildings and other symbols of apartheid These attacks
would serve as a source of inspiration to our people. In addition, they would
provide an outlet for those people who were urging the adoption of violent
methods and would enable us to give concrete proof to our followers that we bad
adopted a stronger line and were fighting back against government violence.
In addition, if mass action were successfully organised and mass reprisals
taken, we felt that sympathy for our cause would be roused in other countries,
and that greater pressure would be brought to bear on the South African government.
This then was the plan. Umkhonto was to perform sabotage, and strict instructions were given to its members right from the start, that on no account were they
to iojur~ or kill people in planning or carrying out operations. These instructions
have '-een referred to in the evidence of'Mr X' and 'Mr Z'.*
T~ affairs of the Umkhonto were controlled and directed by a National High
Command, which had powers of co-option and which could, and did, appoint
Regional Commands. The High Command was the body which determined
tactics and targets and was in charge of training and finance. Under the High
Command there were Regional Commands which were responsible for the direction of the local sabotage groups. Within the framework of the policy laid down
by, the National High Command, the Regional Commands had authority to select
the targets to be attacked. They bad no authority to go beyond the prescribed
framework and thus had no authority to embark upon acts which endangered
life, or which did not fit into the overall plan of sabotage. For instance,
Umkhonto members were forbidden ever to go armed into operation. Incidentally, the terms High Command and Regional Command were an importation from
the Jewish national underground organisation Irgun Zvai Leumi, which operated
in Israel between 1944 and 1948.
Umkhonto bad its first operation on 16 December 1961, when government
buildings in Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Durban were attacked. The selection of targets is proof of the policy to which I have referred. Had we intended to
attack life we would have selected targets where people congregated, and not
empty buildings and power stations. The sabotage which was committed before
16 December 1961 was the work ofisolated.groups and had no connection whatever with Umkhonto. In fact, some of these and a number of later acts were
claimed by other organisations.
The manifesto of Umkhonto was issued on the day that operations
commenced. The response to our actions and manifesto among the white
population was characteristically violent. The government threatened to take
strong action, and called upon its supporters to stand firm and to ignore the
*State witnesses in the uial whose names were withheld.
168
demallds of
tbey respon·
In contra~
there was b,
eager for p<
. ··
r~);
r
',·
successes, •
obtained
But weir
were beiDa'
theprospec
carried repc
couldWCCOI
Already s
tbe famous
Afric:ans wh
white civWa
affair. In 19:
Soutb-\Vest
imposition c
shootings dl
Sbarpeville.
How man
And how ma
terror becon
when that st
but at what l
bowcouldbl
weretbepro
Esperienc
opportunitie~
because tbe ~
Afric:ans that
to use force i
wanted tbe f
fight which t
was guerrilla
tomakeprov
All whites
given to Afri
men who wo
guerrilla war1
too late to m•
*Laager = close
scnlen during tl
�· demands of the Mricans. The whites failed to respond by suggesting change;
they responded to our call by suggesting the laager.*
In contrast, the response of the Mricans was one of encouragement. Suddenly
there was hope again. Things were happening. People in the townships became
eager for political news. A great deal of enthusiasm was generated by the initial
successes, and people began to speculate on how soon freedom would be
obtained.
But we in Umkhonto weighed up the white response with anxiety. The lines
were being drawn. The whites and blacks were moving into separate camps, and
the prospects of avoiding a civil war were made less. The white newspapers
carried reports that. sabotage would be punished by death. If this was so, how
could we continue to keep Mricans away from terrorism?
Already scores of Mricans had died as a result of racial friction. In 1920 when
the famous 1eader, Masabala, was held in Port Elizabeth jail, 24 of a group of
Africans wty> had gathered to demand his release were killed by the police and
white civilians. In 1921, more than one hundred Mricans died in the Bulhoek
affair. In 1924 over two hundred Mricans were killed when the Administrator of
South-West Mrica led a force against a group which bad rebelled against the
imposition of dog tax. On 1 May 1950, 18 Mricans died as a result of police
shootings during the strike. On 21 March 1960,. 69 unarmed Mricans died at
Sharpeyille.
How' many more Sharpevilles would there be in the history of our country?
And how many more Sharpevilles could the country stand without violence and
terror becoming the order of the day? And what would happen to our people
when that stage was reached? In the long run we felt certain we must succeed,
but at what cost to ourselves and the rest of the country? And if this happened,
bow could black and white ever live together again in peace and harmony? These
were the problems that faced us, and these were our decisions.
Experience convinced us that rebellion would offer the government limidess
opportunities for the indiscriminate slaughter of our people. But it was precisely
because the soil of South Mrica is already drenched with the blood of innocent
;~ Mricans that we felt it our duty to make preparations as a long-term undertaking
to use force in order to defend ourselves against force. If war were inevitable, we
wanted the fight to be conducted on terms most favourable to our people. The
fight which held out prospects best for us and the least risk of life to both sides
was guerrilla warfare. We decided, therefore, in our preparations for the future,
to make provision for the possibility of guerrilla warfare.
All whites undergo compulsory military training, but no such training was
given to Mricans. It was in our view essential to build up a nucleus of trained
men who would be able to provide the leadership which would be required if
guerrilla warfare started. We bad to prepare for such a situation before it became
too late to make proper preparations. It was also necessary to build up a nucleus
*Laager =closed defensive position. This refers to the defensive camps of wagons used by white
settlers during their intrusion into Southern Africa.
169
�of men trained in civil administration and other professions, so that Mricans
would be equipped to participate in the government of this country as soon as
they were allowed to do so.
At this stage it was decided that I should attend the Conference of the PanMrican Freedom Movement for Central, East and Southern Mrica, which was to
be held early in 1962 in Addis Ababa, and, because of our need for preparation,
it was also decided that, after the conference, I would undertake a tour of the
Mrican states with a view to obtaining facilities for the training of soldiers, and
that I would also solicit scholarships for the higher education of matriculated
Mricans. Training in both fields would be necessary, even if changes came about
by peaceful means. Administrators would be necessary who would be willing and
able to administer a non-racial state and so would men be necessary to control the
army and police force of such a state.
It was on this note that I left South Mrica to proceed to Addis Ababa as a
delegate of the ANC. My tour was a success. Wherever I went I met sympathy
, for our cause and promises of help. All Mrica was united against the stand of
ite South Mrica, and even in London I was received with great sympathy by
liticalleaders such as Mr Gaitskell and Mr Grimond. In Mrica I was promised
pport by such men as Julius Nyerere, now President of Tanganyika; Mr
Kawawa, then Prime Minister of Tanganyika; Emperor Haile Selassie of
Ethiopia; General Abboud, President of the Sudan; Habib Bourguiba, President
of Tunisia; Ben Bella, now President of Algeria; Modibo Keita, President of
Mali; Leopold Senghor, President of Senegal; Sekou Toure, President of
Guinea; President Tubman of Liberia; and Milton Obote, Prime Minister of
' Uganda. It was Ben Bella who invited me to visit Oujda, the headquarters of the
Algerian Army of National Liberation, the visit which is described in my diary,
one of the exhibits.
I started to make a study of the art of war and revolution and, whilst abroad,
underwent a course in military training. If there was to be guerrilla warfare, I
wanted to be able to stand and fight with my people and to share the hazards of
war with them. Notes of lectures which I received in Algeria are contained in
Exhibit 16, produced in evidence. Summaries of books on guerrilla warfare and
military strategy have also been produced. I have already admitted that these
documents are in my writing, and I acknowledge that I made these studies to
equip myself for the role which I might have to play if the struggle drifted into
guerrilla warfare. I approached this question as every Mrican nationalist should
do. I was completely objective. The court will see that I attempted to examine all
types of authority on the subject - from the East and from the West, going back
to the classic work of Clausewitz, and covering such a variety as Mao Tse Tung
and Che Guevara on the one band, and the writings on the Anglo-Boer War on
the other. Of course, these notes are merely summaries of the books I read and
do not contain my personal views.
I also made arrangements for our recruits to undergo military training. But
here it was impossible to organise any scheme without the co-operation of the
ANC offices in Mrica. I consequently obtained the permission of the ANC in
P.
170
,,•...
,·r::·....
r
{·
"'
~·.
-~:
~·
l·::·
r"',,:--.- "
Soutt
origir.
batch
e»UDt
Irt
trip. t
scene
The~
befort
long t
was e
recorc
hoWe\
of the
traine1
would
lwi
But be
have b.
of pri,·
Noverr
what p
then it.
ofUIIU
One
. general
incorre1
laid do•
internal
the atm•
field of
banning
political
capaciti1
and the
keep th•
remaine·
work tht
recruitin
achieve
recruitec
Solomon
a policy'
tion than
�South Mrica to do this. To this extent then there was a departure from the
original decision of the ANC, but it applied outside South Mrica only. The first
batch of recruits actually arrived in Tanganyika when I was passing through that
oountry on my way back to South Mrica.
I returned to South Mrica and reported to my colleagues on the results of my
trip. On my return I found that there had been linle alteration in the political
scene save that the threat of a death penalty for sabotage had now become a fact.
The attitude of my colleagues in Umkhonto was much the same as it had been
before I left. They were feeling their way cautiously and felt that it would be a
long time before the possibilities of sabotage were exhausted. In fact, the view
was expressed by some that the training of recruits was premature. This is
recorded by me in the document which is Exhibit R.14. Mter a full discussion,
however, it was decided to go ahead with the plans for military training because
of tlae· fact that it would take many years to build up a sufficient nucleus of
~d soldiers to start a guerilla campaign, and whatever happened the training
woUld be of value.
I' wish to tum now to certain general allegations made in this case by the State.
But before doing so, I wish to revert to certain occurrences said by wimesses to
have happened in Port Elizabeth and East London. I am referring to the bombing
of private houses of pro-government persons during September, October and
.November 1962. I do not know what justification there was for these acts, nor
what provocation had been given. But if what I have said already is accepted,
then it is clear that these acts had nothing to do with the carrying out of the policy
ofUmkhonto.
One of the chief allegations in the indictment is that the ANC was a party to a
general conspiracy to commit sabotage. I have already explained why this is
incorrect but how, externally, there was a departure from the original principle
laid down by the ANC. There has, of course, been overlapping of functions
internally as well, because there is a difference between a resolution adopted in
the atmosphere of a committee room and the concrete difficulties that arise in the
field of practical activity. At a later stage the position was further affected by
bannings and house arrests, and by persons leaving the country to take up
political work abroad. This led to individuals having to do work in different
capacities. But though this may have blurred the distinction between Umkhonto
and the ANC, it by no means abolished that distinction. Great care was taken to
keep the activities of the two organisations in South Mrica distinct. The ANC
remained a mass political body of Mricans only carrying on the type of political
work they had conducted prior to 1961. Umkhonto remained a small organisation
recruiting its members from different races and organisations and trying to
achieve its own particular object. The fact that members of Umkhonto were
recruited from the ANC, and the fact that persons served both organisations, like
Solomon Mbanjwa, did not, in our view, change the nature of the ANC or give it
a policy of violence. This overlapping of officers, however, was more the exception than the rule. This is why persons such as 'Mr X' and 'Mr Z', who were on
171
�'
the Regional Command of their respective areas, did not participate in any of the
ANC committees or activities, and why people such as Mr Bennett Masbiyana
and Mr Reginald Ndubi did not bear of sabotage at their ANC meetings.
Another of the allegations in the indictment is that Rivooia was the headquarters of Umkhonto. This is not true of the time when I was there. I was told,
of course, and knew that certain of the activities of the Communist Pany were
carried on there. But this is no reason (as I shall presently explain) why I should
not use the place.
I came there in the following manner:
(a) As already indicated, early in Aprill9611 went underground to organise
the May general strike. My work entailed travelling throughout the
country, living now in African townships, then in country villages and
~, ,again in cities.
\ · During the second half of the year I started visiting the Parktown home
t1 of Arthur Goldreicb, where I used to meet my family privately. Although
, I had no direct political association with him, I had known Arthur
· Goldreich socially since 1958.•
(b) In October, Arthur Goldreicb informed me that he was moving out of
town and offered me a hiding place there. A few days thereafter, he
arranged for Michael Harmel to take me to Rivonia. I naturally found
Rivooia an ideal place for the man who lived the life of an outlaw. Up to
that time I had been compelled to live indoors during the daytime and
could only venture out under cover of darkness. But at Liliesleaf** I
could live differently and work far more efficiently.
(c) For obvious reasons, I had to disguise myself and I assumed the fictitious
name of David. In December, Arthur Goldreich and his family moved in. I
stayed there until I went abroad on II January 1962. As already indicated,
I returned in July 1962 and was arrested in Natal on 5 August.
(d) Up to the time of my arrest, Liliesleaf farm was the headquarters of
neither the African National Congress nor Umkbooto. With the exception
of myself, none of the officials or members of these bodies lived there, no
meetings of the governing bodies were ever held there, and no activities
connected with them were either organised or directed from there. On
numerous occasions during my stay at Liliesleaf farm I met both the
Executive Committee of the ANC, as well as the NHC, but such meetings
were held elsewhere and not on the farm.
(e) Whilst staying at Liliesleaf farm, I frequently visited Arthur Goldreich in
the maio bouse and he also paid me visits in my room. We had numerous
*Anhur Goldreich was 111110118 those arrested in c:onnection with the Rivoaia case. Later he and three
odlcn iD custDdy escaped from jail by bnbiag a guard, and fled the c:ountry.
-Liliesleaf was the name of the farm in the district of Rivonia, on the northern outskirts of
)ohanneaburg, where the arrests took place. At the time it was let to Arthur Goldreich.
172
pol
1· '·.
~'t:,.
,·;_:
i
-.·~
f:"
1~
act
mi:
Je'
(f) Be
ret
kn·
Aoothe
ANCand
own poli1
fromcert
tion as to
Treason·
been mac
ANCand
The i'
African~
the cry,'
theANC
in their o
ANCistl
calls for r
isation o!
owned b:
would be
gesture t1
areowne•
with the'
part of it:
were con·
would tal
the Free
populatic
period of
of the c1
capitalist
As far
correctly,
Marxism
term soh
Freedom
TheA
�political discussions covering a variety of subjects. We discussed ideological and practical questions, the Congress Alliance, Umkhonto and its
activities generally, and his experiences as a soldier in the Palmach, the
military wing of the Haganah. Haganah was the political authority of the
Jewish National Movement in Palestine.
(f) Because of what I had got to know of Goldreich, I recommended on my
return to South Africa that he should be recruited to Umkhonto. I do not
know of my personal knowledge whether this was done.
. Another of the allegations made by the State is that the aims and objects of the
· •. ANC and the Communist Party are the same. I wish to deal with this and with my
own political position, because I must assume that the State may try to argue
r from certain exhibits that I tried to introduce Marxism into the ANC. The allegation u to the ANC is false. This is an old allegation which was disproved at the
. TreasOn Trial and which bas again reared its head. But since the allegation bas
:·~ been !Uade again, I shall deal with it as wen as with the relationship between the
:;J ANC.and the Communist Party and Umkhonto and that party.
~~
The ideological creed of the ANC is, and always has been, the creed of
·~ African Nationalism. It is not the concept of African Nationalism expressed in
;'~ dle cry, 'Drive the White man into the sea.' The African Nationalism for which
;~t dle ANC stands is the concept of freedom and fulfilment for the African people '
~: .• in; their own land. The most iiJ!portant political document ever adopted by the
ANC is the Freedom Charter. It is by no means a blueprint for a socialist state. It
calls for redistribution, but not nationalisation, of land; it provides for nationalisation of mines, banks, and monopoly industry, because big monopolies are
,; ' owned by one race only, and without such nationalisation racial domination
would be perpetuated despite the spread of political power. It would be a hollow
·,~ gesture to repeal the Gold Law prohibitions against Africans when all gold mines
'· are owned by European companies. In this respect the ANC's policy corresponds
, with the old policy of the present Nationalist Party which, for many years, had as
part of its programme the nationalisation of the gold mines which, at that time,
were controlled by foreign capital. Under the Freedom Charter, nationalisation
would take place in an economy based on private enterprise. The realisation of
... .1, dle Freedom Charter would open up fresh fields for a prosperous African
·,; :·population of all classes, including the middle class. The ANC has never at any
:' .:;period of its history advocated a revolutionary change in the economic structure
:" of the country, nor has it, to the best of my recollection, ever condemned
2': capitalist society.
' As far as the Communist Party is concerned, and if I understand its policy
: correctly, it stands for the establishment of a State based on the principles of
.':, ·r Marxism. Although it is prepared to work for the Freedom Charter, as a shortsolution to the problems created by white supremacy, it regards the
.· Freedom Charter as the beginning, and not the end, of its programme.
The ANC, unlike the Communist Party, admitted Africans only as members.
;! '
. rterm
1i3
�Its chief goal was, and is, for the Mrican people to win unity and full political
rights. The Communist Party's main aim, on the other band, was to remove the
capitalists and to replace them with a working-class government. The Communist
Party sought to emphasise class distinctions whilst the ANC seeks to harmonise
them. This is a vital distinction.
It is true that there bas often been close co-operation between the ANC and
the Communist Party. But co-operation is merely proof of a common goal - in
this case the removal of white supremacy - and is not proof of a complete
community of interests.
The history of the world is full of similar e:wnples. Perhaps the most striking
illustration is to be found in the co-operation between Great Britain, the United
States of America, and the Soviet Union in the fight against Hider. Nobody but
Hider would have dared to suggest that such co-operation turned Cburcbill or
Roosevelt into communists or communist tools, or that Britain and America were
working to bring about a communist world.
4-po~er instance of such co-operation is to be found precisely in Umkbonto.
Sborfty after Umkbonto was constituted, I was informed by some of its members
that we Communist Party would support Umkbonto, and this then occurred. At
a later stage the support was made openly.
I believe that communists have always played an active role in the fight by
colonial counuies for their freedom, because the short-term objects of communism would always correspond with the long-term objects of freedom movements.
Thus communists have played an important role in the freedom struggles fought
in. countries such as Malaya, Algeria, and Indonesia, yet none of these states
t<X:Iay are communist countries. Similarly in the underground resistance movements which sprung up in Europe during the last world war, communists played
an important role. Even Gen~ral Chiang Kai-Sbek, today one of the bitterest
enemies of communism, fought together with the communists against the ruling
class in the struggle which led to his assumption of power in China in the 1930s.
This pattern of co-operation between communists and non-communists has
been repeated in the national liberation movement of South Mrica. Prior to the
banning of the Communist Party, joint campaigns involving the Communist Party
and the Congress movements were accepted practice. African communists could,
and did, become members of the ANC, and some served on the national,
provincial, and local committees. Amongst those who served on the National
Executive are Albert Nzula, a former Secretary of the Communist Party, Moses
Kotane, another former Secretary, and J B Marks, a former member of the
Cenual Committee.
I joined the ANC in 1944, and in my younger days I held the view that the
policy of admitting communists to the ANC, and the close co-operation which
existed at times on specific issues between the ANC and the Communist Party,
would lead to a watering down of the concept of Mrican Nationalism. At that
stage I was a member of the Mrican National Congress Youth League, and was
one of a group which moved for the expulsion of communists from the ANC.
174
I···
I·l
This prop·
posa1 wer1
They clefe
formed an
but as a I
political ((
eventually
It is pe1
against co
readily ac1
Tbeoretia
cannot aft'(
only po1iti
bumanbei
live with 1.:
prepared tstalte in sr
equate fie1
ture wbicb
as commut
Suppressio
Communis;
of the role
imprisoned
It is not
who supp<l
always com
the commu
and often s·
powers. Alt
bloc speaks
these circu1
1949, topn
I turn n(
think that i
beliefs are.
I have at·
all, I was be
acting parai
mount cbie:
Chief Mini~
Today I
springs in r
structure at
�This proposal was heavily defeated. Amongst those who voted against the proposal were some of the most conservative sections of Mrican political opinion.
They defended the policy on the ground that from its inception the ANC was
formed and built up, not as a political party with one school of political thought,
· but as a Parliament of the Mrican people, accommodating people of various
· political convictions, all united by the common goal of national liberation. I was
eventually won over to this point of view and I have upheld it ever since.
It is perhaps difficult for white South Mricans, with an ingrained prejudice
against communism, to understand why experienced Mrican politicians so
readily accept communists as their friends. But to us the reason is obvious.
Theoretical differences amongst those fighting against oppression is a luxury we
cannot afford at this stage. What is more, for many decades communists were the
" only pQ~tical group in South Mrica who were prepared to treat Mricans as
~ human~-'gs and their equals; who were prepared to eat with us; talk with us,
.,, live with, s, and work with us. They were the only political group which was
,) prepare to work with the Mricans for the attainment of political rights and a
. ,.,}: stake in~ society. Because of this, there are many Africans who today tend to
··.\l equate freedom with communism. They are supponed in this belief by a legisla+ ture which brands all exponents of democratic government and Mrican freedom
i as communists and bans many of them (who are not communists) under the
Suppression of Communism Act. Although I have never been a member of the
Comtnunist Party, I myself have been named under that pernicious Act because
·
of the role I played in the Defiance Campaign. I have also been banned and
1\i . imprisoned under that Act.
··
It is not only in internal politics that we count communists as amongst those
(:\~ who suppon our cause. In the international field, communist countries have
l'*' always come to our aid. In the United Nations and other Councils of the world
;.1,;.~. the communist bloc bas supponed the Mro-Asian struggle against colonialism
.:),'· · and often seems to be more sympathetic to our plight than some of the Western
'' : powers. Although there is a universal condemnation of apartheid, the communist
:'
bloc speaks out against it with a louder voice than most of the white world. In
1
.-.t
these circumstances, it would take a brash young politician, such as I was in
·~~: 1949, to proclaim that the communists are our enemies.
I tum now to my own position. I have denied that I am a communist, and I
think that in the circumstances I am obliged to state exactly what my political
beliefs are.
I have always regarded myself, in the first place, as an Mrican patriot Mter
all, I was born in Umtata, 46 years ago. My guardian was my cousin, who was the
acting paramount chief of Tembuland, and I am related both to the present paramount chief of Tembuland, Sabata Dalindyebo, and to Kaizer Matanzima, the
Chief Minister of the Transkei.
Today I am attracted by the idea of a classless society, an attraction which
springs in pan from Marxist reading and, in pan, from my admiration of the
structure and organisation of early African societies in this country. The land,
j
175
�then the main means of production, belonged to the tribe. There were no rich or
poor and there was no exploitation.
It is true, as I have already stated, that I have been influenced by Marxist
thought But this is also true of many of the leaders of the new independent
states. Such widely different persons as Gandhi, Nehru, Nkrumah, and Nasser
all acknowledge this fact. We all accept the need for some form of socialism to
enable our people to catch up with the advanced countries of this world and to
overcome their legacy of extreme poverty. But this does not mean we are
Marxists.
Indeed, for my own part, I believe that it is open to debate whether the
Communist Party has any specific role to play at this particular stage of our
political struggle. The basic task at the present moment is the removal of race
discrimination and the attainment of democratic rights on the basis of the
Freedom Charter. In so far as that Party furthers this task, I welcome its
assistSatce. I realise that it is one of the means by which people of all races can be
drawdlinto our struggle.
Frpm my reading of Marxist literature and from conversations with Marxists, I
have 'gained the impression that communists regard the parliamentary system of
the West as undemocratic and reactionary. But, on the contrary, I am an admirer
of such a system.
The Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, and the Bill of Rights are documents
w}tich are held in veneration by democrats throughout the world.
i have great respect for British political institutions, and for the country's
system of justice. I regard the British parliament as the most democratic institution in the world, and the independence and impartiality of its judiciary never fatl
to arouse my admiration.
The American Congress, that country's doctrine of separation of powers, as
well as the independence of its judiciary, arouses in me similar sentiments.
I have been influenced in my thinking by both West and East. All this has led
me to feel that in my search for a political formula, I should be absolutely
impartial and objective. I should tie myself to no particular system of society
other than of socialism. I must leave myself free to borrow the best from the
West and from the East ...
· There are certain exhibits which suggest that we received financial support
from abroad, and I wish to deal with this question.
Our political struggle has always been financed from internal sources - from
funds raised by our own people and by our own supporters. Whenever we had a
special campaign or an important political case -for example, the Treason Trial
- we received financial assistance from sympathetic individuals and organisations in the Western countries. We had never felt it necessary to go beyond these
sources.
But when in 1961 the Umkhonto was formed, and a new phase of struggle
introduced, we realised that these events would make a heavy call on our slender
resources, and that the scale of our activities would be hampered by the lack of
176
,. ..
!.:
I
f
':
funds. On
fundsfror
I must•
ments in.
which hac
from the~
support. I
communis
On my
that we s1:
that west,
whichWel
I have t
not prepa1
disclose th
promisedt
As I unl
suggestion
sought by 1
army whic
fighting fox
the sugges·
their Strugl
themovem·
us.
Our 6gb
of the Stat
features wl
entrenched
poverty an<
'agitators' t•
South Al
countries in
whites enjo:
Africans liv
lessly over'
erosion anci
properly of1
on white fai
the Middle.
econoinic a1
standards.
incomes am
�One of my instructions, as I went abroad in January 1962, was to raise
from the Mrican states.
I must add that, whilst abroad, I bad discussions with leaden of political movein Mrica and discovered that almost every single one of them, in areas
bad still not attained independence, bad received all forms of assistance
the socialist countries, as well as from the West, including that of financial
111pport. I also discovered that some well-known Mrican states, all of them noncommunists, and even anti-communists, bad received similar assistance.
On my return to the Republic, I made a strong recommendation to the ANC
that we should not confine ounelves to Mrica and the Western countries, but
that we should also send a mission to the socialist countries to raise the funds
which we so urgently needed.
' I have been told that after I was convicted such a mission was sent, but I am
not 'prepared to name any countries to which it went, nor am I at liberty to
;1 disdJose the names of the organisations and countries which gave us support or
4
~ promised to do so.
~l·
As I undentand the State case, and m partacular_the evtdence of 'Mr X', the
:~~.: suggestion is that Umkbonto was the inspiration of the Communist Party, which
:Jr;,. aought by playing upon imaginary grievances to enrol the African people into an
<','~:: army which ostensibly was to fight for Mrican freedom, but in reality was
· . ' fighting for a communist state. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact
·' ',rhe suggestion is preposterous. Umkbonto was formed by Africans to further
dleir strugggle for freedom in their own land. Communists and othen supported
rhe movement, and we only wish that more sections of the community would join
us.
Our fight is against real, and not imaginary, hardships or, to use the language
·· of the State Prosecutor, 'so-called hardships'. Basically, we fight against two
features which are the hallmarks of Mrican life in South Africa and which are
entrenched by legislation which we seek to have repealed. These features are
poverty and lack of human dignity, and we do not need communists or so-called
'agitaton' to teach us about these things.
South Mrica is the richest country in Africa, and could be one of the richest
countries in the world. But it is a land of extremes and remarkable contrasts. The
whites enjoy what may weD be the highest standard of living in the world, whilst
Africans live in poverty and misery. Forty per cent of the Africans live in hopelessly overcrowded and, in some cases, drought-stricken Reserves, where soil
erosion and the overworking of the soil make it impossible for them to live
properly off the land. Thirty per cent are labouren, labour tenants, and squatten
on white farms and work and live under conditions similar to those of the serfs of
the Middle Ages. The other 30 per cent live in towns where they have developed
· ' economic and social habits which bring them closer in many respects to white
standards. Yet most Africans, even in this group, are impoverished by low
incomes and high cost of living.
··Jk
Iii
�The highest paid and the most prosperous section of urban African life is in
Johannesburg. Yet their actual position is desperate. The latest figures were
given on 25 March 1964 by Mr Carr, Manager of the Johannesburg NonEuropean Affairs Department The poverty datum line for the average African
family in Johannesburg (according to Mr Carr's department) is R42.84 per
month. He showed that the average monthly wage is R32.24 and that 46 per cent
of all African families in Johannesburg do not earn enough to keep them going.
Poverty goes band in band with malnutrition and disease. The incidence of
malnuuition and deficiency diseases is very high amongst Africans. Tuberculosis,
pellagra, kwashiorkor, gastro-enteritis and scurvy bring death and desuuction of
health. The incidence of infant mortality is one of the highest in the world
According to the Medical Officer of Health for Pretoria, tuberculosis kills forty
people a day (almost all Africans), and in 1961 there were 58,491 new cases
r~rted. These diseases not only destroy the vital organs of the body, but they
resdlt in retarded mental conditions and lack of initiative, and reduce powers of
contentration. The secondary results of such conditions affect the whole
C09UJlunity and the standard of work performed by African labourers.
The complaint of Africans, however, is not only that they are poor and the
whites are rich, but that the laws which are made by the whites are designed to
preserve this situation. There are two ways to break out of poverty. The first is
by formal education, and the second is by the worker acquiring a greater skill at
·~s work and thus higher wages. As far as Africans are concerned, both these
avenues of advancement are deliberately curtailed by legislation.
The present government has always sought to hamper Africans in their search
for education. One of their early acts after coming into power was to stop
subsidies for African school feeding. Many African children who attended
schools depended on this supplement to their diet This was a cruel act.
There is compulsory education for all white children at virtually no cost to
their parents, be they rich or poor. Similar facilities are not provided for the
African children, though there are some who receive such assistance. African
children, however, generally have to pay more for their schooling than whites.
According to figures quoted by the South African Institute of Race Relations in
its 1963 journal, approximately 40 per cent of African children in the age group
between seven and fourteen do not attend school. For those who do attend
school, the standards are vasdy different from those afforded to white children.
In 1960-61 the per capita government spending on African students at Stateaided schools was estimated at Rl2.46. In the same years, the per capita spending
on white children in the Cape Province (which are the only figures available to
me) was Rl44.57. Although there are no figures available to me, it can be stated,
without doubt, that the white children on whom Rl44.57 per head was being
spent all came from wealthier homes than African children on whom Rl2.46 per
head was being spent.
The quality of education is also different. According to the Bantu Educational
Journal, only 5,660 African children in the whole of South Africa passed their
178
Junior Cert
sumably co1
Prime Min.
'When Iba·
taught frolr
People wh(
Departmen
(.:.
\
~:
f
r
education a
knowledge.
The oth(
industrial c•
whites only
semi-skille'
unionswhi<
that strikes
collective b
discriminatJ
African wo:
which shelt
who cannot
of the avera
The gov•
Africa are c
Africa. I d<
comparison
countries. I
irrelevant !
other count
own count1
imbalance.
The lack
policy ofw
tion design•
in South Al
carried ore
whether th<
whites tend
as people w
-that the
•The junior (
not normally I•
higher educat1
Certificate lev•
Even fewer at~
�Certificate in 1962, and in that year only 362 passed matric. * This is preconsistent with the policy of Bantu education about which the present
lYlllllllll••~" said, during the debate on the Bantu Education Bill in 1953:
I have control of Native education I will reform it so that Natives will be
from childhood to realise that equality with Europeans is not for them ...
who believe in equality are not desirable teachers for Natives. When my
fl'llo:llllrrm•~nt controls Native education it will know for what class of higher
·ffd~Jcatlon a Native is fitted, and whether he will have a chance in life to use his
tlllow:ledRe.'
~· The other main obstacle to the economic advancement of the African is the
>industrial colour-bar under which all the better jobs of industry are reserved for
i whites only. Moreover, Africans who do obtain employment in the unskilled and
; semi-skilled occupations which are open to them are not allowed to form trade
unions whic;h have recognition under the Industrial Conciliation Act This means
•. tbat strik~ of African workers are illegal, and that they are denied the right of
. CXIllectivcl bargaining which is permitted to the better-paid white workers. The
. discrimipation in the policy of successive South African governments towards
1 African workers is demonstrated by the so-called 'civilised labour policy' under
i which sheltered, unskilled government jobs are found for those white workers
~who cannot make the grade in industry, at wages which far exceed the earnings
f of the average African employee in industry.
1 'Ole government often answers its critics by saying that Africans in South
Africa are economically better off than the inhabitants of the other countries in
.f. Africa. I do not know whether this statement is true and doubt whether any
7annparison can be made without having regard to the cost-of-living index in such
( CXIuntries. But even if it is true, as far as the African people are concerned it is
/) irrelevant Our complaint is not that we are poor by comparison with people in
Y· other countries, but that we are poor by comparison with the white people in our
; own country, and that we are prevented by legislation from altering this
.? imbalance.
" The lack of human dignity experienced by Africans is the direct result of the
,policy of white supremacy. White supremacy implies black inferiority. Legisla'tion designed to preserve white supremacy entrenches this notion. Menial tasks
· iD South Africa are invariably performed by Africans. When anything has to be
carried or cleaned the white man will look around for an African to do it for him,
'-whether the African is employed by him or not. Because of this son of attitude,
:_•', whites tend to regard Africans as a separate breed. They do not look upon them
{~ as people with families of their own; they do not realise that they have emotions
l - that they fall in love like white people do; that they want to be with their
i
: *The Junior Certificate examination is generally taken by white children at the age of 15, and they do
r. 1101 normally leave school before this. Matriculation is taken two years later and qualifies students for
~~ bigber education. The educational system, however, ensures that very few Africans reach junior
.'·Certificate level, so that what represents a basic standard for whites is one of achievement for Africans.
t Even fewer anain matriculation level.
179
�the majority of voters will be Africans. This makes the white man fear
this fear cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the only solution which
guarantee racial harmony and freedom for all. It is not true that the enfranliisc:melnt of all will result in racial domination. Political division, based on
is entirely artificial and, when it disappears, so will the domination of one
group by another. The ANC has spent half a century fighting against
When it triumphs it will not change that policy.
· This then is what the ANC is fighting. Their struggle is a truly national one. It
struggle of the African people, inspired by their own suffering and their own
·
It is a struggle for the right to live.
~ Durin~ my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African
,people. I ~ave fought against white domination, and I have fought against black
ft»minatio).1. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which
:all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal
; which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I
,am prepared to die.
--y····
fcm 1'1 June 1964, at the conclusion of the trial, Mandela and setJen others (Falter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, Raymond Mhlaba, Elias Motsoaledi, Andrew
(.Mlangeni, Ahmed Kathrada and Denis Goldberg- were convicted. Mandela
; IDIIS found guilty on four charges of sabotage and like the others was sentenced to life
; imprisonment.
·
I
t
. .i·
(
t
, ll(b) STATEMENT BY CHIEF LVTULI
l, Press statement by Chief Albert Lutuli issued by the ANC, 12 June 1964,
. following the Rivonia verdict and released by the ANC office in London.
.;·Sentences of life imprisonment have been pronounced on Nelson Mandela,
.. ~Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, Govan Mbeki, Denis Goldberg, Raymond
· Mhlaba, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni in the 'Rivonia trial' in Pretoria.
Over the long years these leaders advocated a policy of racial co-operation, of
,;· goodwill, and of peaceful struggle that made the South African liberation movement one of the most ethical and responsible of our time. In the face of the most
bitter racial persecution, they resolutely set themselves against racialism; in the
face of continued pro\'ocation, they consistently chose the path of reason.
lSi
�'BLACK MAN IN A WHITE COURT'
FIRST COURT STATEMENT, 196l
/J#Qaljrom rhe court record of rAe trial of MaNdel~.~ lleld in rhe Old Syt~~~~ope
1111161, Pretll'lia,from 15 October to 1 November 1962. Mtmdela tDas accrued em
11110 COUIIU, that of itu:itirrg persons to strike illegally (tblrilrf rhe 1961 Jray-atIIMM) and that of leaving rhe country rDithout a oalid pauptm. He ccmducud his
Dfllfl defence.
MANDELA: Your Worship, before I plead to the cbarge, there are one or twol
points I would like to raise.
Firsdy, Your Worship will recall that this matter was postponed last Monday
at my request until today, to enable Counsel to make the arrangements to be
available here today.* Although Counsel is now available, after consultation with
him and my attorneys, I have elected to conduct my own defence. Some time
during the progress of these proceedinp, I hope to be able to indicate that this
case is a trial of the aspirations of the African people, and because of that I
rhought it proper to conduct my own defence. Nevertheless, I have decided to
retain the services of Counsel, who will be here throughout these proceedings,
and I also would like my attorney to be available in the course of these proceedillgs as well, but subject to that I will conduct my own defence.
The second point I would like to raise is an application which is addressed to
Your Worship. Now at the outset, I want to malte it perfectly clear that the
remarks I am going to make are not addressed to Your Worship in his personal
capacity, nor are they intended to reflect upon the integrity of the court. I bold
Your Worship in high esteem and I do not for one single moment doubt your
sense of fairness and justice. I must also mention that nothing I am going to raise
in this application is intended to reflect apinst the Prosecutor in his personal
capacity.
The point I wish to raise in my argument is based not on personal considerations, but on important questions that go beyond the scope of this present trial. I
might also mention that in the course of this application I am frequendy going to
refer to the white man and the white people. I want at once to make it clear that I
am no rac:ialiat, and I detest racialism, because I regard it as a barbaric thing,
whether it comes from a black man or from a white man. The terminology that I
am going to employ will be compelled on me by the nature of the application I am
making.
I want to apply for Your Worship's recuaal** from this case. I challenge the
right of this court to hear my case on two grounds.
*Maodela bad applied for a remand, becaiiiC the trial bad two and a balf mootba pruioualy been
sdlcduled to lake piKe ill the jolwiDesburg RegioDal Coun, where .Maodela bad 11'1'11118ed for bia
defeDCC by advocate Joe Slovo. Durio& the weekend before it opeoed, however, it was suddeDly
switcbed to Pretoria - aod Slovo was restricted by a govemDICJit banDiDg order to the magisterial
district of jobamlesburg.
**Rec:usal =withdrawal from the case on grounds of prejudice.
133
... ·,:
'
'.
'·.
'··
._,
·-.,I
,• '•
,.
�Firstly, I challenge it because I fear that I 'Yill not be given a fair and proper
trial Secondly, I consider myself neither legally nor morally bound to obey laws
made by a parliament in which I have no representation.
In a political trial such as this one, which involves a clash of the aspirations of
the African people and those ofwhites,.the country's courts, as presently constituted, cannot be impartial and fair.
In such cases, whites are interested parties. To have a white judicial officer
presiding, however high his esteem, and however strong his sense of fairness and
justice, is to make whites judges in their own case.
It is improper and against the elementary principles of justice to entrust whites
with cases involving the denial by them of basic human rights to the African
people.
What sort of justice is this that enables the aggrieved to sit in judgement over
those against whom they have laid a charge?
.... Ajudiciary controlled entirely by whites and enforcing laws enacted by a white
parliament in which Africans have no representation -laws which in .most cases
are passed in the face of unanimous opposition from Africans MAGISTRATE: I am wondering whether I shouldn't interfere with you at this
stage, Mr Mandela. Aren't we going beyond the scope of the proceedings? After
all is said and done, there is only one court today and that is the White Man's
court. There is no other court. What purpose does it serve you to make an application when there is only one court, as you know yourself. What court do you
wish to be tried by?
MANDELA: Well, Your Worship, firstly I would like Your Worship to bear in
mind that in a series of cases our courts have laid it down that the right of a
litigant to ask for a recusal of a judicial officer is an extremely important right,
which must be given full protection by the court, as long as that right is exercised
honestly. Now I honestly have apprehensions, as I am going to demonstrate just
now, that this unfair discrimination throughout my life has been responsible for
very grave injustices, and I am going to contend that that race discrimination
which outside this court has been responsible for all my troubles, I fear in this
court is going to do me the same injustice. Now Your Worship may disagree with
that, but Your Worship is perfectly entitled, in fact, obliged to listen to me and
because of that I feel that Your WorshipMAGISTRATE: I would like to listen, but I would like you to give me the
grounds for your application for me to recuse myself.
MANDELA: Well, these are the grounds, I am developing them, sir. If Your
Worship will give me timeMAGISTRATE: I don't wish to go out of the scope of the proceedings.
MANDELA: - Of the scope of the application. I am within the scope of the
application, because I am putting forward grounds which in my opinion are likely
not to give me a fair and proper trial.
134
MA
~
judi
par!
pas:
ani
1
bef·
the
plrl
118t
wlli
~I
con
;~~11
fie<
con
and
con
law.
II
the
den
for1
stitt
ma~
II
far:
and
non·
1
us,;
'It
the
~
whi'
&an·
~·
ofb
I
en&\
the
just
�MAGISTRATE: Anyway proceed.
rMANDELA: As your Worship pleases. I was developing the point that a
I judiciary controlled entirely by whites and enforcing laws enacted by a white
parliament in which we have no representation, laws which in most cases are
passed in the face of unanimous opposition from Africans, cannot be regarded as
an impartial tribunal in a political trial where an African stands as an accused.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that aU men are equal
before the law, and are entitled without any d.isc:rimination to equal protection of
the law. In May 1951, Dr D F Malan, then Prime Minister, told the Union
parliament that this provision of the Declaration applies in this country. Similar
statements have been made on numerous occasions in the past by prominent
whites in this country, including judges and magistrates. But the real truth is that
there is in fact no equality before the law whatsoever as far as our people are
concerned, and statements to the contrary are definitely incorrect and misleading.
It is true that an African who is charged in a court of law enjoys, on the surface, the same rights and privileges as an accused who is white in so far as the
conduct of this trial is concerned. He is governed by the same rules of procedure
and evidence as apply to a white accused. But it would be grossly inaccurate to
conclude from this fact that an African consequently enjoys equality.before the
law.
In its proper meaning equality before the law means the right to participate in
dle making of the laws by which one is governed, a constitution which guarantees
democratic rights to aU sections of the population, the right to approach the court
for protection or relief in the case of the violation of rights guaranteed in the constitution, and the right to take part in the administration of justice as judges,
magistrates, attorneys-general, law advisers and similar positions.
In the absence of these safeguards the phrase 'equality before the law', in so
far as it is intended to apply to us, is meaningless and misleading. All the rights
and privileges to which I have referred are monopolised by whites, and we enjoy
none of them.
The white man makes aU the laws, he drags us before his courts and accuses
us, and he sits in judgement over us.
It is fit and proper to raise the question sharply, what is this rigid colour-bar in
the administration of justice? Why is it that in this courtroom I face a white
magistrate, am confronted by a white prosecutor, and escorted into the dock by a
white orderly? Can anyone honestly and seriously suggest that in this type of
atmosphere the scales of justice are evenly balanced?
Why is it that no African in the history of this country has ever had the honour
of being tried by his own kith and kin, by his own flesh and blood?
I will tell Your Worship why: the real purpose of this rigid colour-bar is to
ensure that the justice dispensed by the courts should conform to the policy of
the country, however much that policy might be in conflict with the. norms of
justice accepted in judiciaries throughout the civilised world.
135
�I feel oppressed by the atmosphere of white domination that lurks all around
in this courtroom. Somehow this atmosphere calls to mind the inhuman injustices
caused to my people outside this courtroom by this same white domination.
It reminds me that I am voteless because there is a parliament in this country
that is white-controlled. I am without land ,because the white minority bas taken a
lion's share of my country and forced me to ocx:upy poveny-striclten Reserves,
over-populated and over-stocked. We are nvaged by starvation and disease •••
MAGISTRATE: What bas that got to do with the case, Mr Mandela?
MANDELA: With the last point, Sir, it bimgs together, if Your Worship will
give me the chance to develop it.
MAGISTRATE: You have been developing it for quite a while now, and I feel
you are going beyond the scope of your application.
MANDELA: Your Worship, this to me is an extremely important ground which
the court must consider.
MAGISTRATE: I fully realise your position, Mr Mandela, but you must
confine yourself to the application and not go beyond it I don't want to know
.. , . ~bout starvation. That in my view bas got nothing to do with the case at the
present moment
I: MANDELA: \VeU, Your Wonhip bas already raised the point that here in this
country there is only a white court What is the point of all this? Now if I can
demonstrate to Your Worship that outside this courtroom race discrimination bas
been used in such a way as to deprive me of my rights, not to treat me fairly,
certainly this is a relevant fact from which to infer that wherever race discrimination is practised, this will be the same result, and this is the only reason why I am
using this point.
MAGISTRATE: I am afnid that I will have to interrupt you, and you will have
to confine yourself to the reasons, the real reasons for asking me to recuse myself.
r
MANDELA: Your Worship, the next point which I want to make is this: I raise
· the question, bow can I be expected to believe that this same racial discrimination
which bas been the cause of so much injustice and suffering right through the
years should now opente here to give me a fair and open trial? Is there no danger
that an Mrican accused may regard the courts not as impartial tribunals, dispensing justice without fear or favour, but as instruments used by the white man to
punish those amongst us who clamour for deliverance from the fiery furnace of
white rule. I have grave fears that this system of justice may enable the guilty to
dng the innocent before the courts. It enables the unjust to prosecute and
demand vengeance apinst the just. It may tend to lower the standards of fairness
and justice applied in the country's courts by white judicial officers to black
litigants. This is the 6rst ground for this application: that I will not receive a fair
and proper trial.
136
�J
i
;
Tbe second ground of my objection is that I consider myself neither morally
nor legally obliged to obey laws made by a· parliament in which I am not represented.
That the will of the people is the basis of the authority of government is a
principle universally acknowledged as sacred throughout the civilised world, and
constitutes the basic foundations of freedom and justice. It is understandable why
citizens, who have the vote as well as the right to direct representation in the
country's governing bodies, should be morally and legally bound by the laws
governing the country.
It should be equally understandable why we, as Africans, should adopt the
attitude that we are neither morally nor legally bound to obey laws which we
have not made, nor can we be expcc:ted to have confidence in courts which
enforce such laws.
I am aware that in many cases of this nature in the past, South African courts
have upheld the right of the African people to work for democratic changes.
.· Some of our judicial otlicers have even openly criticised the policy which refuses
to acknowledge that all men are bom free and equal, and fearlessly condemned
· the denial of opportunities to our people.
But such exceptions exist in spite of, not because of, the grotesque system of
justice that bas been built up in tbis country. These exceptions furnish yet
another proof that even among the country's whites there are honest men whose
sense of faimess and justice revolu against the cruelty perpetrated by their own
white brothers to our people.
The existence of genuine democratic values among some of the country's
whites in the judiciary, however slender they may be, is welcomed by me. But I
have no illusions about the significance of this fact, healthy a sign as it might be.
Such honest and upright whites are few and they have certainly not succeeded in
convincing the vast majority of the rest of the white population that white
supremacy leads to dangers and disaster.
However, it would be a hopeless commandant who relied for his victories on
the few soldiers in the enemy camp who sympathise with his cause. A competent
general pins his faith on the superior striking power he commands and on the
justness of his cause which he must pursue uncompromisingly to the bitter end.
I hate race discrimination most intensely and in all its manifestations. I have
fought it all during my life; I fight it now, and will do so until the end of my days.
Even although I now happen to be tried by one whose opinion I hold in high
esteem, I detest most violendy the set-up that surrounds me here. It makes me
feel that I am a black man in a white man's court. This should not be. I should
feel perfecdy at ease and at home with the assurance that I am being tried by a
fellow South African who does not regard me as an inferior, entided to a special
type of justice.
This is not the type of atmosphere most conducive to feelings of security and
confidence in the impartiality of a court.
137
�The court might reply to this pan of my argument by assuring me that it will
try my case fairly and without fear or favour, that in deciding whether or not I am
guilty of the offence charged by the State, the court will not be influenced by the
colour of my skin or by any other improper motive.
That might well be so. But such a reply would completely miss the point of my
argumenL
As already indicated, my objection is not directed to Your Worship in his
personal capacity, nor is it intended to reflect upon the integrity of the court. My
objection is based upon the fact that our courts, as presendy constituted, create
grave doubts in the minds of an Mrican accused, whether be will receive a fair
and proper trial.
This doubt springs from objective facts relating to the practice of unfair
discrimination against the black man in the constitution of the country's courts.
Such doubts cannot be allayed by mere verbal assurances from a presiding
· ~' officer, however sincere such assurances might be. There is only one way, and
'·.one way only, of allaying such doubts, namely, by removing unfair discrimination
:' in judicial appointments. This is my first difficulty.
I have yet another difficulty about similar assurances Your Worship might
give. Broadly speaking, Mricans and whites in this country have no common
standard of fairness, morality, and ethics, and it would be very difficult to determine on my pan what standard of fairness and justice Your Worship has in mind.
In their relationship with us, South Mrican whites regard it as fair and just to
pursue policies which have outraged the conscience of mankind and of honest
and upright men throughout the civilised world. They suppress our aspirations,
bar our way to freedom, and deny us opportunities to promote our moral and
material progress, to secure ourselves from fear and want. All the good things of
life are reserved for the white folk and we blacks are expected to be content to
nourish our bodies with such pieces of food as drop from the tables of men with
white skins. This is the white man's standard of justice and fairness. Herein lies
his conceptions of ethics. Whatever he himself may say in his defence, the white
man's moral standards in this country must be judged by the extent to which he
bas condemned the vast majority of its inhabitants to serfdom and inferiority.
We, on the other band, regard the struggle against colour discrimination and
for the pursuit of freedom and happiness as the highest aspiration of all men.
Through bitter experience, we have learnt to regard the white man as a harsh and
merciless type of human being whose contempt for our rights, and whose utter
indifference to the promotion of our welfare, makes his assurances to us
absolutely meaningless and hypocritical.
I have the hope and confidence that Your Worship will not hear this objection
ligbdy nor regard it as frivolous. I have decided to speak frankly and honesdy
because the injustice I have referred to contains the seeds of an extremely
dangerous situation for our country and people. I make no threat when I say that
unless these wrongs are remedied without delay, we might well find that even
138
l
1
ll
t
l
1
I
1
I
s
a
v
r
\'
t
;
;
r;
~
t'
i:
�plain talk before the country's courts is too timid a method to draw the attention
of the country to our political demands.
Finally, I need only to say that the couns have said that the possibility of bias
and not actual bias is all that needs be proved to ground an application of this
nature. In this application I have merely referred to certain objective facts, from
1 which I submit that the possibility be inferred that I will not receive a fair and
L_proper trial.
MAG ISTRAT : Mr Prosecutor, have you anything to say?
PROSECUTOR. Very briefly, Your Worship, I ju wish to point out that there
are cenain legal g unds upon which an accused erson is entided to apply for
the recusal of a ju ial officer from the case in
ich he is to be tried. I submit
that the Accused's a lication is not based on e of those principles, and I ask
the Coun to reject it.
MAGISTRATE: [to andela] Your appli tion is dismissed. Will you now
plead to your charges?
MANDELA: I plead NO GUlL TY to
charges, to all the charges.
Among the witnesses was r Barnard, e private secretary to the then Prime
Minister, Dr H F Verwoerd, whom Ma dela cross-examined on the subject of a
letter sent by Mandela to the ·me Mi er demanding a National Convention in
May 1961. In cross-examining
ess, Mandelafirst read the contents of the
letter:
'I am directed by the All-in
National Action Council to address your
government in the following te
'The All-in Mrican National ~ ·on Council was established in terms of a
resolution adopted at a confere ce h d at Pietermaritzburg on 25 and 26 March
1961. This conference was a nded
1,500 delegates from town and country,
representing 145 religious,
ial, cultu al, sporting, and political bodies.
'Conference noted that ur govern ent, after receiving a mandate from a
section of the European~ ulation, deci d to proclaim a republic on 31 May.
'It was the firm view of elegates that y r government, which represents only
a minority of the popula on in this country, is not entided to take such a decision
without first seeking
views and obtainin the express consent of the Mrican
people. Conference fi ed that under this p posed republic your government,
which is already not ious the world over for s obnoxious policies, would continue to make even ore savage attacks on the ·ghts and living conditions of the
Mrican people.
'Conference
efully considered the grave olitical situation facing the
y. Delegate after delegate ew attention to the vicious
Mrican people
manner in w ich your government forced the people of Zeerust,
Sekhukhunilan , Pondoland, Nongoma, Tembulan and other areas to accept
the unpopular ystem of Bantu Authorities, and po' ed to numerous facts and
incidents whic indicate the rapid manner in which ra relations are deteriorating in this country.
�MANDELA: You say that the Indian merchant class in this country, who are
going to lose their business rights, are happy about it?
t
WITNESS: Well, not all.
a
MANDELA: Not all. And you are saying that those members of the Indian
community who are going to be driven away from the areas where they are living
at present would be happy to do so?
WITNESS: Yes, they would be.
MANDELA: Well, Mr Moolla, I want to leave it at that, but just to say that you
have lost your soul.
,. r
;
'
!.i
FollofJJing the closure of the prosecution case against him, Mandela addressed the
court:
I am charged with .inci~g people to commit an offence by way of p~otest ag~st
the law, a law which ne1ther I nor any of my people bad any say m preparmg.
The law against which the protest was directed is the law which established a
republic in the Union of South Africa. I am also charged with leaving the country
without a passport. This court bas found that I am guilty of incitement to commit
an offence in opposition to this law as well as of leaving the country. But in
weighing up the decision as to the sentence which is to be imposed for such an
offence, the court must take into account the question of responsibility, whether
it is I who is responsible or whether, in fact, a large measure of the responsibility
does not lie on the shoulders of the government which promulgated that law,
knowing that my people, who constitute the majority of the population of this
country, were opposed to that law, and knowing fUrther that every legal means
of demonstrating that opposition had been closed to them by prior legislation,
and by government administrative action.
The starting point in the case against me is the holding of the conference in
Pietermaritzburg on 25 and 26 March last year [ 1961 ], known as the All-in
African Conference, which was called by a committee which had been established by leading people and spokesmen of the whole African population, to consider the situation which was being created by the promulgation of the republic
in the country, without consultation with us, and without our consent. That
conference unanimously rejected the decision of the government, acting only in
the name of and with the agreement of the white minority of this country, to
establish a republic.
It is common knowledge that the conference decided that, in place of the
unilateral proclamation of a republic by the white minority of South Africans
only, it would demand in the name of the African people the calling of a truly
national convention representative of all South Africans, irrespective · of their
colour, black and white, to sit amicably round a table, to debate a new constitu·
tion for South Africa, which was in essence what the government was doing by
the proclamation of a republic, and funhermore, to press on behalf of the
148
t
(
t
e
il
l'
c
I'
d
g.
ir
It
n•
c:
tb
ol
tr
bi
cc·
ac
P'
in
li~
th
de
co
co
th'
th:
co
el1
fat
du
•A
�.:c African people, that such new constitution should differ from the constitution of
· die proposed South African Republic by guaranteeing democratic rights on a
basis of full equality to all South Africans of adult age. The conference bad
~~~~~:mbled, knowing full well that for a long period the present National Party
Government of the Union of South Africa bad refused to deal with, to discuss
with, or to take into consideration the views of, the overwhelming majority of the
South African population on this question. And, therefore, it was not enough for
Ibis conference just to proclaim its aim, but it was also necessary for the conference to find a means of stating that aim strongly and powerfully, despite the
government's unwillingness to listen.
Accordingly, it was decided that should the government fail to summon such a
National Convention before 31 May 1961, all sections of the population would be
·~
called on to stage a general strike for a period of three days, both to mark our
protest against the establishment of a republic, based completely on white
domination over a non-white majority, and also, in a last attempt to persuade the
A government to heed our legitimate claims, and thus to avoid a period of increas'
in&-hitterness and hostility and discord in South Africa.
At that conference, an Action Council was elected, and I became its secretary.
It 'was my duty, as secretary of the committee, to establish the machinery
! necessary for publicising the decision of this conference and for directing the
~ campaign of propaganda, publicity, and organisation which would flow from it.
The court is aware of the fact that I am an attorney by profession and no doubt
~ . the question will be asked why I, as an attorney who is bound, as part of my code
' of behaviour, to observe the laws of the country and to respect its customs and
traditions, should willingly lend myself to a campaign whose ultimate aim was to
bring about a strike against the proclaimed policy of the government of this
country.
In order that the court shall understand the frame of mind which leads me to
'
action such as this, it is necessary for me to explain the background to my own
political development and to try to make this court aware of the factors which
influenced me in deciding to act as I did.
Many years ago, when I was a boy brought up in my village in the Transkei, I
listened to the elders of the tribe telling stories about the good old days, before
the arrival of the white man. Then our people lived peacefully, under the
·' democratic rule of their kings and their amapakati, * and moved freely and
confidently up and down the country without let or hindrance. Then the
country was ours, in our own name and right. We occupied the land, the forests,
the rivers; we extracted the mineral wealth beneath the soil and all the riches of
this beautiful country. We set up and operated our own government, we
controlled our own armies and we organised our own trade and commerce. The
elders would tell tales of the wars fought by our ancestors in defence of the
fatherland, as well as the acts of valour performed by generals and soldiers
during those epic days. The names of Dingane and Bambata, among the Zulus,
I
• Amapakati ='insiders', those of highest rank next to the king.
149
�of Hintsa, Makana, Ndlambe of the Amaxhosa, of Sekhukhuni and others in the
north, were mentioned as the pride and glory of the entire African nation.
I hoped and vowed then that, among the treasures that life might offer me,
would be the opportunity to serve my people and make my own bumble contribution to their freedom struggles.
The structure and organisation of early African societies in this country
fascinated me very much and greatly influenced the evolution of my political outlook. The land, then the main means of production, belonged to the whole tribe,
and there was no individual ownership whatsoever. There were no classes, no
rich or poor and no exploitation of man by man. All men were free and equal and
this was the foundation of government. Recognition of this general principle
found expression in the constitution of the council, variously called Imbizo, or
Pitso, or Kgotla, which governs the affairs of the tribe. The council was so
completely democratic that all members of the tribe could participate in its
. deliberations. Chief and subject, warrior and medicine man, all took part and
endeavoured to influence its decisions. It was so weighty and influential a body
that no step of any importance could ever be taken by the tribe without reference
to it.
There was much in such a society that was primitive and insecure and it
certainly could never measure up to the demands of the present epoch. But in
such a society are contained the seeds of revolutionary democracy in which none
will be held in slavery or servitude, and in which poverty, want, and insecurity
shall be no more. This is the inspiration which, even today, inspires me and my
colleagues in our political struggle.
When I reached adult stature, I became a member of the African National
Congress. That was in 1944 and I have followed its policy, supported it, and
believed in its aims and outlook for eighteen years. Its policy was one which
appealed to my deepest inner convictions. It sought for the unity of all Africans,
overriding tribal differences among them. It sought the acquisition of political
power for Africans in the land of their binh. The African National Congress
further believed that all people, irrespective of the national groups to which they
may belong, and irrespective of the colour of their skins, all people whose home
is South Africa and who believe in the principles of democracy and of equality of
men, should be treated as Africans; that all South Africans are entitled to live a
free life on the basis of fullest equality of the rights and opportunities in every
field, of full democratic rights, with a direct say in the affairs of the government.
These principles have been embodied in the Freedom Charter, which none in
this country will dare challenge for its place as the most democratic programme
of political principles ever enunciated by any political party or organisation in this
country. It was for me a matter of joy and pride to be a member of an organisation
which has proclaimed so democratic a policy and which campaigned for it
militantly and fearlessly. The principles enumerated in the Charter have not been
those of African people alone, for whom the African National Congress has
always been the spokesman. Those principles have been adopted as well by the
150
Indl
Col·
also
org;
the!
the
F
imp
ing
I di
bus
the
Altl
Grc
Tht
pra•
clie
aba
we
do!
ille1
thrc
it w
we
con:
I!
ofli•
rest
wei
bee•
that
wer
teet
pro
aga.
bas:
int
upt.
'thav
init:
Un
�.IDdian people and the South African Indian Congress; by a section of the
· Coloured people, through the South African Coloured People's Congress, and
also by a farsighted, forward-looking section of the EW"Opean population, whose
orpnisation in days gone by was the South African Congress of Democrats. All
dlese organisations, like the African National Congress, supported completely
die demand for one man, one vote.
Right at the beginning of my career as an attorney I encountered difficulties
imposed on me because of the colour of my skin, and further difficulty surrounding me because of my membership and support of the African National Congress.
I discovered, for example, that, unlike a white attorney, I could not occupy
business premises in the city unless I first obtained ministerial consent in terms of
the Urban Areas Act. I applied for that consent, but it was never granted.
~
Although I subsequently obtained a permit, for a limited period, in terms of the
g Group Areas Act, that soon expired, and the authorities refused to renew it.
They insisted that my partner, Oliver Tambo, and I should leave the city and
practise in an African location at the back of beyond, miles away from where
clients could reach us during working hours. This was tantamount to asking us to
abandon our legal practice, to give up the legal service of our people, for which
we had spent many years training. No attorney wonh his salt will agree easily to
do so. For some years, therefore, we continued to occupy premises in the city,
~illegally. The threat of prosecution and ejection bung menacingly over us
, '.throughout that period. It was an act of defiance of the law. We were aware that
it was, but, nevertheless, that act had been forced on us against our wishes, and
we could do no other than to choose between compliance with the law and
compliance with our consciences.
In the courts where we practised we were treated courteously by many
officials but we were very often discriminated against by some and treated with
resentment and hostility by others. We were constantly aware that no matter bow
well, bow correctly, bow adequately we pursued our career of law, we could not
become a prosecutor, or a magistrate, or a judge. We became aware of the fact
that as attorneys we often dealt with officials whose competence and attainments
were no higher than ours, but whose superior position was maintained and protected by a white skin.
I regarded it as a duty which I owed, not just to my people, but also to my
profession, to the practice of law, and to justice for all mankind, to cry out
against this discrimination, which is essentially unjust and opposed to the whole
basis of the attitude towards justice which is part of the tradition of legal training
in this country. I believed that in taking up a stand against this injustice I was
upholding the dignity of what should be an honourable profession.
Nine years ago the Transvaal Law Society applied to the Supreme Coun to
have my name struck off the roll because of the part I had played in a campaign
initiated by the African National Congress, a campaign for the Defiance of
Unjust Laws. During the campaign more than eight thousand of the most
f
!51
�advanced and farseeing of my people deliberately couned arrest and imprisonment by breaking specified laws, which we regarded then, as we still do now, as
unjust and repressive. In the opinion of the Law Society, my activity in connection with that campaign did not conform to the standards of conduct expected
from members of our honourable profession, but on this occasion the Supreme
Coun held that I bad been within my rights as an attorney, that there was nothing
disbonourable in an attorney identifying himself with his people in their struggle
for political rights, even if his activities should infringe upon the laws of the
country; the Supreme Coun rejected the application of the Law Society.
It would not be expected that with such a verdict in my favour I should
discontinue my political activities. But Your Worship may well wonder why it is
that I should find it necessary to persist with such conduct, which bas not only
:brought me the difficulties I have referred to, but which bas resulted in my
spending some four years on a charge before the courts of high treason, of which
I was subsequently acquitted, and of many months in jail on no charge at all,
merely on the basis of the government's dislike of my views and of my activities
during the whole period of the Emergency of 1960.
Your Worship, I would say that the whole life of any thinking Mrican in this
country drives him continuously to a conflict between his conscience on the one
band and the law on the other. This is not a conflict peculiar to this country. The
conflict arises for men of conscience, for men who think and who feel deeply in
every country. Recently in Britain, a peer of the realm, Earl Russell, probably
the most respected philosopher of the Western world, was sentenced, convicted
for precisely the type ofactivities for which I stand before you today, for following his conscience in defiance of the law, as a protest against a nuclear weapons
policy being followed by his own government. For him, his duty to the public, his
belief in the morality of the essential rigbmess of the cause for which be stood,
rose superior to this high respect for the law. He could not do other than to
oppose the law and to suffer the consequences for it. Nor can I. Nor can many
Mricans in this country. The law as it is applied, the law as it bas been developed
over a long period of history, and especially the law as it is written and designed
by the Nationalist government, is a law which, in our view, is immoral, unjust,
and intolerable. Our consciences dictate that we must protest against it, that we
must oppose it, and that we must attempt to alter it.
Always we have been conscious of our obligations as citizens to avoid breaches
of the law, where such breaches can be avoided, to prevent a clash between the
authorities and our people, where such clash can be prevented, but nevertheless,
we have been driven to speak up for what we believe is right, and to work for it
and to try and bring about changes which will satisfy our human conscience.
Throughout its fifty years of existence the Mrican National Congress, for
instance, has done everything possible to bring its demands to the attention of
successive South African governments. It has sought at all times peaceful
solutions for all the country's ills and problems. The history of the ANC is filled
with instances where deputations were sent to South African go\·ernments either
152
onspe•
to bur•
were s•
made·
Minist
organi:
and to
Chief·.
expres
bad be
Tbi:
majori·
the le~
South
been'
expect
letter'
Prime
Tbi:
as Sec;
to the
been 1
nation:
lnaci·
ment'
reque:
ties ar
govert
world
letter,
soevet
Coun•
guard
betwe
gover:
object
Were
wayo
Were
right,
prese1
law?·
men'
answ•
�issues or on the general political demands of our people. I do not wish
Your Worship by enunciating the occasions when such deputations
sent; all that I wish to indicate at this stage is that, in addition to the efforts
by former presidents of the ANC, when Mr Strijdom became Prime
of this country, my leader, Chief A J Lutuli, then President of our
~.':•lllislltiOIIl, made yet another effon to persuade this government to consider
heed our point of view. In his letter to the Prime Minister at the time,
Lutuli exhaustively reviewed the country's relations and its dangers, and
.a,JIIP"CliK'u the view that a meeting between the government and African leaders
. ,·Dd become necessary and urgent
This statesmanlike and correct behaviour on the pan of the leader of the
·· . majority of the South African population did not find an appropriate answer from
· •<:leader of the South African government The standard of behaviour of the
'~·j :lcRiib African government towards my people and its aspirations has not always
.4 ··~~ceil what it should have been, and is not always the standard which is to be
!1: apected in serious high-level dealings between civilised peoples. Chief Lutuli's
lmer was not even favoured with the counesy of an acknowledgement from the
J. Prime Minister's office.
This experience was repeated after the Pietermaritzburg conference, when I,
"~., ·. • Secretary of the Action Council, elected at that conference, addressed a letter
;1,\:IDthe Prime Ministe~, Dr Ver_woerd! ~orming him of the resolu~on which had
t,t:been taken, and calling on him to IDlbate steps for the conveDJDg of such a
''f'.rional convention as we suggested, before the date specified in the resolution.
't.ID a civilised country one would be outraged by the failure of the head of govern-\'.~ malt even to acknowledge receipt of a letter, or to consider such a reasonable
. :i; request put to him by a broadly representative collection of bnponant personali,lf3g!'lies and leaders of the most imponant community of the country. Once again,
\ .~ pemment standards in dealing with my people fell below what the civilised
;, world would expect No reply, no response whatsoever, was received to our
:i- letter, no indication was even given that it bad received any consideration what.reoever. Here we, the African people, and especially we of the National Action
.l ~f Council, who had been entrusted with the tremendous responsibility of safe;· ~~ parding the interests of the African people, were faced with this conflict
~·. , ; between the law and our conscience. In the face of the complete failure of the
:{·, ~ government to heed, to consider, or even to respond to our seriously proposed
' :;·objections and our solutions to the forthcoming republic, what were we to do?
. Were we to allow the law which states that you shall not commit an offence by
way of protest, to take its course and thus betray our conscience and our belief?
~ere we t~ uphold our conscience and our beliefs t~ str!ve f~r what we believe is
· ; right, not JUSt for us, but for all the people who hve m th1s country, both the
,.~;¢ present generation and for generations to come, and thus transgress against the
· F' law? This is the dilemma which faced us, and in such a dilemma, men of honesty,
· men of purpose, and men of public morality and of conscience can only have one
answer. They must follow the dictates of their conscience irrespecti\'e of the
'!/:''·
i·
l·
.
I
•i:
tf
!:>3
�consequences which might overtake them for it. We of the Action Council, and I
particularly as Secretary, followed my conscience.
,· ..
If I had my time over I would do the same again, so would any man who dares
call himself a man. We went ahead with our campaign as instructed by the conference and in accordance with its decisions.
The issue that sharply divided white South Mricans during the referendum
for a republic did not interest us. It formed no part in our campaign. Continued
association with the British monarchy on the one hand, or the establishment of a
Boer republic on the other - this was the crucial issue in so far as the White
population was concerned and as it was put to them in the referendum. We are
neither monarchists nor admirers of a Voortrekker type of republic. We believe
that we were inspired by aspirations more worthy than either of the groups who
took pan in the campaign on these. We were inspired by the idea of bringing into
· ; being a democratic republic where all South Mricans will enjoy human rights
\without the slightest discrimination; where Mrican and non-Mrican would be
!.< able to live together in peace, sharing a common nationality and a common loyalty
to this country, which is our homeland. For these reasons we were opposed to the
type of republic proposed by the Nationalist Party government, just as we have
been opposed previously to the constitutional basis of the Union of South Mrica
as a part of the British Empire. We were not prepared to accept, at a time when
constitutional changes were being made, that these constitutional changes should
not affect the real basis of a South Mrican constitution, white supremacy and
white domination, the very basis which has brought South Mrica and its constitution into contempt and disrepute throughout the world.
I wish now to deal with the campaign itself, with the character of the
campaign, and with the course of events which followed our decision. From the
beginning our campaign was a campaign designed to call on people as a last
extreme, if all else failed, if all discussions failed to materialise, if the government showed no sign of taking any steps to attempt either to treat with us or to
meet our demands peacefully, to strike, that is to stay away from work, and so to
bring economic pressure to bear. There was never any intention that our
demonstrations, at that stage, go further than that. In all our statements, both
those which are before the court, and those which are not before the court, we
made it clear that that strike would be a peaceful protest, in which people were
asked to remain in their homes. It was our intention that the demonstration
should go through peacefully and peaceably, without clash and conflict, as such
demonstrations do in every civilised country.
Nevertheless, around that campaign and our preparations for that campaign
was created the atmosphere for civil war and revolution. I would say deliberately
created. Deliberately created not by us, Your Worship, but by the government,
which set out from the beginning of this campaign not to treat with us, not to
heed us, not to talk to us, but rather to present us as wild, dangerous revolutionaries, intent on disorder and riot, incapable of being dealt with in any way save by
mustering an overwhelming force against us and the implementation of every
!54
possibl•
behave·
peaceft
popuJa·
terrori!
politic!
laws et
eilhtt.
them,:
the str
would
goven
violen·
measu
which
them:
anem]
timet
not er
deny i
of the
any e'
Our (
wbelt
on th•
were
the g•
aimo
h
knov.
move
incap
whel
to de
whic
gove
their
willi
thin!
have
sive
time
than
mas
�\,
·,
!
possible forcible means, legal and illegal, to suppress us. The government
behaved in a way no civilised government should dare behave when faced with a
peaceful, disciplined, sensible, and democratic expression of the views of its own
population. It ordered the mobilisation of its armed forces to attempt to cow and
terrorise our peaceful protest. It arrested people known to be active in African
politics and in suppon of African demands for democratic rights, passed special
laws enabling it to hold them without trial-for twelve days instead of the fortyeight hours which had been customary before, and hold them, the majority of
them, never to be charged before the courts, but to be released after the date for
the strike had passed. If there was a danger during this period that violence
would result from the situation in the country, then the possibility was of the
government's making. They set the scene for violence by relying exclusively on
violeaoe •.:with which to answer our people and their demands. The countermeasu~s which they took clearly reflected growing uneasiness on their pan,
which trew out of the knowledge that their policy did not enjoy the suppon of
the IJlfjority of the people, while ours did. It was clear that the government was
attempting to combat the intensity of our campaign by a reign of terror. At the
time the newspapers suggested the strike was a failure and it was said that we did
not enjoy the suppon of the people. I deny thaL I deny it and I will continue to
deny it as long as this government is not prepared to put to the test the question
of the opinion of the African people by consulting them in a democratic way. In
any event, the evidence in this case has shown that it was a substantial success.
Our campaign was an intensive campaign and met with tremendous and overwhelming response from the population. In the end, if a strike did not materialise
on the scale on which it had been hoped it would, it was not because the people
were not willing, but because the overwhelming strength, violence, and force of
the government's attack against our campaign had for the time being achieved its
aim of forcing us into submission against our wishes and against our conscience.
I wish again to return to the question of why people like me, knowing all this,
knowing in advance that this government is incapable of progressive democratic
moves so far as our people are concerned, knowing that this government is
incapable of reacting towards us in any way other than by the use of overwhelming brute force, why I and people like me nevenheless decide to go ahead
to do what we must do. We have been conditioned to our attitudes by the history
which is not of our making. We have been conditioned by the history of White
governments in this country to accept the fact tlhlt Africans, when they make
their demands strongly and powerfully enough to have some chance of success,
will be met by force and terror on the pan of the governmenL This is not something we have taught the African people, this is something the African people
have learned from their own bitter experience. We learned it from each successive government. We learned it from the government of General Smuts at the
time of two massacres of our people: the 1921 massacre in Bulhoek when more
than a hundred men, women, and children were killed~ and from the 1924
massacre- the Bondelswan massacre in South-West Africa, in which some two
155
�hundred Mricans were killed. We have continued to learn it from every
successive government
Government violence can do only one thing, and that is to breed counterviolence. We have warned repeatedly that the government, by resorting continually to violence, will breed in this country counter-violence amongst the people,
till ultimately, if there is no dawning of sanity on the part of the governmentultimately, the dispute between the government and my people will finish up by
being settled in violence and by force. Already there are indications in this
country that people, my people, Mricans, are turning to deliberate acts of
violence and of force against the government, in order to persuade the government, in the only language which this government shows by its own behaviour
that it understands.
Elsewhere in the world, a court would say to me, 'You should have made
representations to the government.' This court, I am confident, will not say so.
Representations have been made, by people who have gone before me, time and
time again. Representations were made in this case by me; I do not want again to
repeat the experience of those representations. The court cannot expect a
respect for the processes of representation and negotiation to grow amongst the
Mrican people, when the government shows every day, by its conduct, that it
despises such processes and frowns upon them and will not indulge in them. Nor
will the court, I believe, say that, under the circumstances, my people are
condemned forever to say nothing and to do nothing. If this court says that, or
believes it, I think it is mistaken and deceiving itself. Men are not capable of
doing nothing, of saying nothing, of not reacting to injustice, of not protesting
against oppression, of not striving for the good of society and the good life in the
ways they see it. Nor will they do so in this country.
Perhaps the court will say that despite our human rights to protest, to object,
to make ourselves beard, we should stay within the letter of the law. I would say,
Sir, that it is the government, its administration of the law, which brings the law
into such contempt and disrepute that one is no longer concerned in this country
to stay within the letter of the law. I will illustrate this from my own experience.
The government bas used the process of law to handicap me, in my personal life,
in my career, and in my political work, in a way which is calculated, in my
opinion, to bring about a contempt for the law. In December 1952 I was issued
with an order by the government, not as a result of a trial before a court and a
conviction, but as a result of prejudice, or perhaps Star Chamber procedure
behind closed doors in the balls of government. In terms of that order I was
confined to the magisterial district of Johannesburg for six months and, at the
same time, I was prohibited from attending gatherings for a similar period. That
order expired in June 1953 and three months thereafter, again without any
bearing, without any attempt to bear my side of the case, without facing me with
charges, or explanations, both bans were renewed for a further period of two
years. To these bans a third was added: I was ordered by the Minister of JustiCl'
to resign altogether from the African National Congrcs;, and nc,·~r agam w
156
li
(1
d
t;
s
c
c
C·
a
\\
p
\\
e:
il
f,
a
a
�become a member or to participate in its activities. Towards the end of 1955, I
found myself free and able to move around once again, but not for long. In
February 1956 the bans were again renewed, administratively, again without
bearing, this time for five years. Again, by order of the government, in the name
of the law, I found myself restricted and isolated from my fellow men, from
people who think like me and believe like me. I found myself uailed by officers
of the Security Branch of the Police Force wherever I went In sbon, I found
myself treated as a criminal- an unconvicted criminal. I was not allowed to pick
my company, to frequent the company of men, to participate in their political
activities, to join their organisations. I was not free from constant police surveillance. I was made, by .the law, a criminal, not because of what I bad done, but
because of what I stood for, because of what I thought, because of my conscience. Can it be any wonder to anybody that such conditions make a man an
outla\f of society? Can it be wondered that such a man, having been outlawed by
the government, should be prepared to lead the life of an outlaw, as I have led
for some months, according to the evidence before this coun?
It has not been easy for me during the past period to separate myself from my
wife and children, to say goodbye to the good old days when, at the end of a
strenuous day at an office, I could look forward to joining my family at the
dinner-table, and instead to take up the life of a man hunted continuously by the
police, living separated from those who are closest to me, in my own country,
facing continually the hazards of detection and of arrest. This has been a life
infinitely more difficult than serving a prison sentence. No man in his right senses
would voluntarily choose such a life in preference to the one of normal family
social life which exists in every civilised community.
But there comes a time, as it came in my life, when a man is denied the right to
live a normal life, when he can only live the life of an outlaw because the government bas so decreed to use the law to impose a state of outlawry upon him. I was
driven to this situation, and I do not regret having taken the decisions that I did
take. Other people will be driven in the same way in this country, by this very
same force of police persecution and of administrative action by the government,
to follow my course, of that I am cenain. The decision that I should continue to
carry out the decisions of the Pietermaritzburg conference, despite police persecution all the time, was not my decision alone. It was a decision reached by me, in
consultation with those who were entrusted with the leadership of the campaign
and its fulfilment. It was clear to us then, in the early periods of the campaign,
when the government was busy whipping up an atmosphere of hysteria as the
prelude to violence, that the views of the African people would not be heard,
would not find expression, unless anempts were made deliberately by those of us
entrusted with the task of carrying through the strike call to keep away from the
illegal, unlawful attacks of the Special Branch, the unlawful detention of people
for twelve days without trial, and unlawful and illegal intervention by the police
and the government forces in legitimate political activity of the population. I was,
at the time of the Pietermaritzburg conference, free from bans for a shon time,
157
�met Uopold Senghor, President of Senegal, Presidents SCkou Toure and
Tubman, of Guinea and Liberia, respectively.
I met Ben Bella, the President of Algeria, and Colonel Boumedienne, the
Commander-in-Chief of the Algerian Army of National Liberation. I saw the
cream and flower of the Algerian youth who had fought French imperialism and
whose valour bad brought freedom and happiness to their country.
In London I was received by Hugh Gaitskell, Leader of the Labour Party, and
by Jo Grimond, Leader of the Liberal Party, and other prominent Englishmen.
I met Prime Minister Obote of Uganda, distinguished African nationalists like
Kenneth Kaunda, Oginga Odinga, Joshua Nkomo, and many others. In all these
countries we were showered with hospitality, and assured of solid support for
our cause.
In its efforts to keep the African people in a position of perpetual subordinaP,on, South Africa must and will fail. South Africa is out of step with the rest of
~ 'civilised world, as is shown by the resolution adopted last night by the
Gjneral Assembly of the United Nations Organisation which decided to impose
diplomatic and economic sanctions. In the African states, I saw black and white
mingling peacefully and happily in hotels, cinemas, trading in the same areas,
using the same public transport, and living in the same residential areas.
I had to return home to report to my colleagues and to share my impressions
and experiences with them.
I have done my duty to my people and to South Africa. I have no doubt that
'. posterity will pronounce that I was innocent and that the criminals that should
'.have been brought before this court are the members of the Verwoerd government.
At the end of this trilll, on 7 NOflember 1962, Mandela was convicted and
sentenced to three years' imprisonment on the charge of incitement and two years for
leaving the country without 'Oalid travel documents.
At the close of the trWl the crowd ignored a special prohibition on all demonstrations relating to trillls and marched through the streets singing a freedom song,
'Tshotsholoza Mandela', a call to Mandela to continue the struggle.
11. T
On
Sftll
app
fwo;
Tht
the
kgi.·
Cri;
t:DJ7.
""''
the
a..
GClJ
Ma
tml:
ll(a)
Ma
Qlti
lamtl
I h
)Ohan!
convi'
for in'
Att
tbattt
ists is
leader
proud
haves
Jnr
of the
by 0\l
Bamb.
Sekbu
that li
humb
all tba
*It is C\'
some~
readers
edition
160
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Don Baer
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Communications
Don Baer
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1994-1997
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36008" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7431981" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0458-F
Description
An account of the resource
Donald Baer was Assistant to the President and Director of Communications in the White House Communications Office. The records in this collection contain copies of speeches, speech drafts, talking points, letters, notes, memoranda, background material, correspondence, reports, excerpts from manuscripts and books, news articles, presidential schedules, telephone message forms, and telephone call lists.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
537 folders in 34 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Mandela
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Communications
Don Baer
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0458-F
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 25
<a href="http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/2006/2006-0458-F.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7431981" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
1/12/2015
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
42-t-7431981-20060458F-025-011-2014
7431981