by Madikizela-Mandela, Winnie; Kathrada, Ahmed; Kathrada, Ahmed
I must also mention that when Mr Levin came to see me in the cells on the date of the trial he informed me that Mrs Kay had decided to pay for our defence since I refused government money. I told him I could not go against my husband’s wish that I be defended by Mr Carlson.
My husband and I have been banned from communicating with each other because according to Brig Aucamp they quarrelled the last time he saw him when my husband demanded to see Mr Brown73 or Mr Carlson. After our appearance in court on the 28th of October Brig Aucamp called me to the office and told me that he would be visiting the Island and he would grant me permission to meet with my husband.
I asked him for permission to see Maud and told him that there are so many things I did not understand as a result of the confusion which arose in court and since she was present in court I assumed she was not a state witness. Brig Aucamp told me the matter would have to be discussed by the police first and that he would let me know the following day what there is. Today is the 10th of November and I have not heard from him.
Swanepoel [was furious] over the [use] of the Afrikaner newspaper’s letterheads for the leaflets74 and right through the interrogation he kept saying, ‘Even the Communists have never played this one on us, Winnie Mandela, and it was a good one but your fun has not lasted.’ He also said, ‘I am shocked to learn a woman drew such a document. Yes, I must compliment you because your work is original unlike Lilian75 whose speeches were drawn [up] by Ruth First76 – that bitch who has been thrown out of the African independent states.’ He later referred to No. 377 as the woman with strange organisation powers, who within a year had the whole police force running all over the country. He sarcastically wanted to know, ‘What do you do with all your friends especially your men who all end up doing your wish. Leave us some inheritance before that heart stops.’
My view is that the police would have arrested us on the spot and prevented the distribution of such an inflammatory leaflet. Since No. 978 and myself were banned it would have even been more dramatic to arrest us there and then.
In June 1969 whilst I was still under interrogation, Major Coetzee of Johannesburg told me that Mr Zwarenstein would appear for me and others if I should be charged because Mr Bizos79 no longer wanted to appear for me as he had lost interest in political cases. Coetzee further went on to say Mr Zwarenstein is one of the greatest advocates the country has and that he was once listed but the police recommended the removal of his name from the list of Communists because he is such a good man. This recommendation is supposed to have been made by Ludi.80
During the 3rd week of October 1969 I was taken to Compol Building again and Swanepoel said to me, ‘Winnie! My favourite freedom fighter. I do not want you to be defended by that Bizos, Soggot, Kuny crowd, then there’ll be no convictions, is that our deal?’ My experience with this type of mentality is that silence is the best weapon. I simply kept quiet and could not waste my time replying to this trash.
50. Mrs Mandela’s sister-in-law.
51. Nelson Mandela’s cousin.
52. Mrs Mandela’s brother.
53. Owen Vanqa.
54. The people supporting Kaiser Matanzima, a relative of Nelson Mandela. He co-operated with the apartheid authorities and agreed to establish the Bantustan called the Transkei.
55. Dalindyebo is the family name of the Thembu royal family, which raised Nelson Mandela. King Sabata Dalindyebo was opposed to the Bantustan system.
56. In Swaziland.
57. Africans were then forbidden from having passports.
58. Alexandra township.
59. Wife of activist Dr Costa Gazides, who was a political activist and one of the accused in the Bram Fischer trial. He had left the country and Mrs Mandela was visiting his wife.
60. Referring to evidence against her.
61. Dr Braun claimed to be working for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union but they were never able to work out exactly who he was.
62. United States Information Service.
63. Samuel Ndou.
64. A journalist.
65. An anti-apartheid activist living in exile in London.
66. Elliot Shabangu or Joyce Sikhakhane.
67. Samuel Ndou, David Motau and Hlengani Jackson Mahlaule.
68. Port Elizabeth.
69. Published in 1965; the apartheid regime’s account of the Rivonia Trial.
70. It could refer to 1967 when Carlson was instructed by London lawyers to defend 37 Namibians, including Andimba Toivo ja Toivo. It is therefore possible that the defence was paid for by a British benefactor.
71. Wife of Pan-Africanist Congress leader, Robert Sobukwe.
72. Mrs Mandela was banished to the Free State town of Brandfort in May 1977.
73. An attorney.
74. In August 1968 one of her group of activists who had a friend who worked in the storeroom of the Vaderland newspaper managed to access some out-of-date Vaderland letterheads. They used this to roneo about 3 000 leaflets, which were distributed to both English and Afrikaans newspapers.
75. Lilian Ngoyi.
76. Political activist, then in exile.
77. Winnie Mandela.
78. Rita Ndzanga.
79. Her advocate George Bizos.
80. Gerard Ludi, a police spy who had infiltrated the Communist Party.
Chapter 9
Attitude of the Interrogators
ACC. 4 25-6-70
MY IMPRESSIONS OF THE ATTITUDE OF THE INTERROGATORS
I got the impression that there was really no intention to interrogate one seriously. It seemed the idea was merely to test one’s feelings perhaps to establish to what extent solitary confinement had affected one’s emotion.
I also thought that if they (the SBs) had any ‘plants’ among us, the intention was perhaps to get reports from them without arousing the suspicion of others. Since we are locked up next to one another, it would be impossible for the police to communicate with one without the knowledge of the others.
Brig Aucamp on his visit of the 24th of February told me that the case was definitely withdrawn and there was no possibility of a retrial on the ‘old’ indictment. He assured me that if there was ever a case it would definitely be a new case.
The impression I got from Swanepoel was that we would be held indefinitely and later released. When he spoke to me on the 1st of May he remarked that they had been very kind to have withdrawn the case against us and that I had to co-operate as I know they are very patient; that they were in no particular hurry as there was no case pending. They could interrogate me until 1978.
On two of the visiting magistrate’s visits I asked for the documents confiscated from us on the day of our re-detention. I explained that I had notes for my defence and records of the trial; I stated that the police had no right to take these documents as we still face the same case. The reply was brought by the magistrate on the third visit. He said he had had repeated requests from the men for these documents. He had made representations for us and he was assured that they would be given to us when we were released. He further said I need not have any fears as there would be no more case based on these records.
On each occasion when the Security Branch visited me in the cells (which was every week prior to my admission to hospital) they wanted to know how I felt, whether I didn’t want to make special representations to be released. My reply was if I had committed no crime, and if their own court had found me not guilty there was no reason why I was in Central Prison at all, and under solitary confinement for that matter. It seemed they were very keen that the suggestion or the plea should come from me and I knew this would invite ‘strings attached to our or my release’.
Even in hospital they paid me one visit during the second week accompanied by matron Zeelie and they asked me the same question. I reported this to my colleagues and told them I would not make any representations for our release but that any one of them could do so and we would see what the reaction would be. I also felt accused No. 9 should n
ot do so if asked.
During the discussion held with Brig Aucamp a few days before my admission to hospital he gave me a definite impression ‘certain things might happen within the next three or four weeks’ before the hearing of an application by our attorney but that our fate would be decided after the application was heard. Were ‘these certain things’ perhaps the present case? And his comment as we left the office, ‘I want you to ease your mind and can assure you, you have no cause to worry and lose any more weight.’
My informant mentioned in the smuggled note works in the staff office where she has replaced a girl who was released two months back on special parole and she works for the Minister of Justice Mr Pelser. On Sunday the 14th of June this girl visited my informant. She told that her ‘Baas’ was very upset, he had not even eaten his supper the previous night. She overheard him tell his wife that there were people who did not agree with him that the ‘Terror people’ should be released that weekend. That these people felt there should be a case first but he did not agree with that, he felt it was easier to (just let them go as there was too much talk). They had therefore quarrelled a lot.
The strange relaxation [of] Brig’s strict security measures on notes for our attorney makes me feel very suspicious. Not once has the wardress in charge of me at the hospital ever asked to check my notes nor is the very diligent matron Zeelie bothered about my notes. She used to strip me naked before I saw my attorney. This makes me feel very suspicious that there is yet another plot. When Brig Aucamp visited me in hospital on the 24.6.70 when he brought my husband’s letter he found me writing and he said, ‘What are you writing Winnie.’ I said, ‘The usual stuff for my attorney.’ He extended his hand quite impulsively to take the notes and perhaps have a look but he quickly withdrew his hand and seemed to have remembered something. He was accompanied by an officer with lots of rank stars and matron Zeelie. They were all so damned sulky you would have thought they were in a procession!
The day I screamed at Brig Aucamp about the suitcases and the conditions of our detention was the first time for him to ever attempt to whitewash himself – this suggested to me that there was something wrong somewhere. His comments inter alia were, ‘What have I got to do with your being here? I am merely detaining you on a new police warrant, if they issue your warrant of release now it does not matter if I have sentenced you to twenty days. I have to let you go.’
The Brig Aucamp I know is the one who thumbs his chest and says, ‘You will be here for as long as I want, your Soggot81 will not have me transferred from here, nor will Winnie Mandela and I’ll see to that – you and I will be together for a long time and your defence will not be there.’
To even go to the extent of calling Acc. No. 7 to prove to me that he had been ‘very kind’ and considerate by not charging her and Acc. 20 for the letter sounded so strange and so unlike him.
I am very puzzled about their sudden concern over my health. It is such a terrible inconvenience for all of them to keep me in hospital as it is locked day and night. I am so much better that normally they should have long discharged me back to the cell. I am checked thrice a day by the senior hospital orderly.
81. Advocate.
Chapter 10
May Diary
Being held incommunicado was the most cruel thing the Nationalists ever did. I’d communicate with the ants; anything that has life. If I had lice I would have even, I would have even nursed them. That’s what this solitary confinement [does]; there is no worse punishment than that. I think you can stand imprisonment of 27 years. You are mixing with the other prisoners, you get your three meals a day, the only thing you have lost is your freedom of movement. Your mind isn’t incarcerated that’s all but with solitary confinement you are not allowed to read, you are not allowed to do anything, you have just yourself. — WINNIE MADIKIZELA-MANDELA 2012
Late in the afternoon after my return from Compol Building Brig Aucamp came to my cell with Matron Zeelie. I was still fuming with rage over the morning incident. He said he was shocked to see how much weight I had lost and wanted to know whether there was anything particularly troubling me. In reply I said I should imagine he must be delighted to note the effect of the brutal conditions to which he had subjected us. I wanted to know how else he expected to find women whose clothes were wrapped in lice-riddled blankets, eating half rations, with nothing to read, locked up for 24 hours each day with ten minutes break thrice or twice a week, with lights on day and night to make it impossible to sleep – at this stage I was screaming at him – he interrupted and said, I [knew] very well that those were not his instructions – I interrupted also and said I thought he was in charge of prison security – I therefore wondered how our suitcases were a security risk and went on to tell him that in fact Major Ferreira and Swanepoel had said who is he to have told me we were detained because we violated prison conditions. I also said I thought he was at least a little more respected by his colleagues and was surprised to hear such comments from ordinary majors. He became furious and wanted to know if they had said anything else. I said they told me it’s him who confiscated our suitcases and stripped us of everything. That it was him who gave specific instructions about our treatment. We hardly had toothpaste, face creams, etc.
He said, ‘I am going to fix them up, how dare they lie, what have I to do with your suitcases. I am detaining you here on a new warrant from the Security Branch and if they issue an order that I should let you go it does not matter if I have sentenced you to twenty days for violating prison conditions I would be forced to let you go. You also know that all that about you being detained for breaking prison conditions was just a joke. I’ll prove to you how I have ignored all those petty violations – at this stage he sent matron to fetch Acc. No. 7.
He said to her, ‘Did I not catch a letter of yours from Magubane and what did I do about it?’ No. 7 replied in the affirmative about the letter and said nothing was done about it. He then addressed me again saying I was accusing him of things he had not done just like my husband. He also said he would prove that he knew nothing about the suitcases – that he was going right away to speak to Swanepoel and Ferreira. He stormed away.
The following day our cells were opened and we were ordered out. We saw each other for the first time since the 16th of Feb. Brig Aucamp addressed us – he told us we could get our suitcases back, that those of us who had money could buy face creams, that he would discuss the question of reading matter with the police but that he was still too cross with Swanepoel, he was not prepared to speak to him yet – that if there was anything else we needed I should discuss it with him. I told him I wanted a further discussion with him on the conditions of our detention. He said he would find time to see me.
DISCUSSION BETWEEN ACCUSED NO. 4 AND BRIG A
I raised the following matters with him the following day when he called:
(a) That I deeply resented the underestimation of my intelligence by his men. That I saw through the Levin plot whilst I was under interrogation on the 26th May 1969. That even a fool knows when he is being fooled. That I decided to carry on with the fooling around to the end to see who would win the battle of wits. I therefore decided I would instruct my own defence publicly in court on behalf of my colleagues naturally as it was my responsibility. I therefore requested him to tell his men to stop interrogating my colleagues about the attorney – that there was no mystery about it. I instructed my attorney to appear for all of us. That the police have all my correspondence from abroad – that nowhere does it refer subversively to my attorney. That the police boast of having had one of their men amongst us – the so called Soweto Group – this man knows we were not involved with my attorney in our activities. That in any case it was also my husband’s wish that Mr Carlson should defend me and I had in any event given instructions to my brother-in-law in front of Tucker to instruct Mr Carlson the day I was detained.
In reply to this he said he had discussed this whole matter with my husband who is a very understanding man.
That they discussed this for two hours and he gave my husband his reasons for having objected to Mr Carlson. ‘In any case Winnie let us be quite frank with each other – at the moment he is the only attorney who can get funds from overseas and is the best political attorney because he is handling all political cases – it is natural to want an experienced man when in trouble.’ He promised to discuss the interrogation with his men.
(b) I then discussed the general horrible conditions of detention. How these conditions lead to quarrels between us and the prison staff who are merely carrying out instructions. That I was shocked to learn there was someone else giving instructions other than him because what we and our defence know was that the matrons are acting on his instructions. I said I felt there was some mischief within his own ranks because the matrons had never mentioned anyone else’s name to our defence except his. (We had already been given our suitcases as proof that Swanepoel’s crowd has given the instructions for their confiscation.) (But of course he knows about this though I pretended I was not aware of that.)
That I hoped he would sort out this confusion once and for all as we were under the impression that anything that concerned us within the prison premises was his responsibility. He quickly said, yes, indeed it was so, and no one else had any right to give any type of instruction concerning us.
I reminded him that Swanepoel and Coetzee had told me they were the ones who would decide when I would be flown in a military plane to visit my husband. He said there was no such a thing, he and he alone decides who should see my husband.
He told me that he fired matron Jacobs when he discovered that she was carrying out instructions from other people. This was discovered accidentally when my diary was impounded. He said he was shocked to notice we were not getting exercises, showers etc in my diary and an explanation was demanded from him – surely he was not expected to take us personally to the shower and for exercises. He then wanted to know whether everything I had written in the diary was really true. I replied in the affirmative, he apologised and said he thought I merely wanted propaganda to stir up trouble between my defence and himself but that he had also discovered that Jacobs was double-faced.