491 Days
Page 24
(d) Arrange with the Minister of Police for members of the South African Police to guard the house daily from 7pm to 6am until my brother-in-law and his family join my wife.
(e) To request the Minister of Interior to furnish my wife with a passport to enable her to holiday abroad.
(f) Grant my wife and me a two hour contact visit for the purpose of discussing the special problems outlined here.
2
My wife is a person upon whom notice has been served under the provisions of the Suppression of Communism Act, 44 of 1950. I have not had the opportunity of seeing the actual text of the abovementioned notice, but to the best of my knowledge and belief, she is prohibited from attending gatherings, entering a factory, an educational centre or similar places. Though she is free to take up employment within the urban area of Johannesburg, she is otherwise confined to Orlando Township and is not permitted to enter the rest of the area in Johannesburg known as Soweto.
3
In terms of the abovementioned notice, and with the exception of our two daughters now aged 15 and 13 respectively, no person is allowed to visit the house during certain specified hours. As the children were then and still are, away at a boarding school for the greater part of the year, this meant that she had to live all alone in the house.
4
Towards the end of 1970 and again on 27 May 1971 I wrote to your predecessor, Mr PC Pelser, requesting him to grant me an interview to enable me to discuss with him my wife’s house arrest and its implications. In this connection I wish to refer you to the following passage in my letter of 27 May 1971:
‘I consider it dangerous for a woman and detrimental to her health to live alone in a rough city like Johannesburg. She suffers from an illness which is caused by worry and tension and which has on occasions rendered her unconscious. Believe me when I say that I have since September last year lived in a real nightmare. She has visited me thrice since her release from prison, and the harmful effects of many nights of loneliness, fear and anxiety are written across her face. She looks pale and spent. I am further told that her hardships have been carefully and fully explained to you, without success, by herself as well as her legal representative. I cannot get myself to accept that you could remain indifferent where the very life of another human being is actually involved, and I ask you to relax the notice to enable her to live with friends and relatives.’
In addition, I raised other family problems which I considered serious and repeated the request for the interview.
5
I was informed by the Commanding Officer at the time and by Brigadier Aucamp, that both letters had been forwarded to your predecessor. I regret to advise you, however, that Mr Pelser did not even favour me with the courtesy of an acknowledgement to say nothing of a reasoned reply.
However, sometime after the May 1971 letter had been forwarded my wife informed me that the notice had been relaxed and that she could now live with such relatives or friends as were qualified to remain within the urban area of Johannesburg in terms of its influx control regulations. She further informed me that although the terms of the notice were still restrictive, some of the problems about which I had complained in my second letter had somewhat eased.
6
In pursuance of the aforementioned relaxation our friends, Mr and Mrs Madhlala, came to live with my wife. To the best of my knowledge and belief, [the] Madhlalas were not associated with any of the political organisations that fight against racial oppression generally and the policy of Separate Development in particular. In spite of this, the Security Police repeatedly dragged them to their headquarters and subjected them to gruelling interrogation. As a result of this harassment they were reluctantly compelled to leave our place. The news of the experience of the Madhlalas at our house spread far and wide and people, including close friends who would readily agree to reside with my wife, took fright and are now unwilling to do anything that may attract the attention of the Security Police so much so that today there is hardly any person who is willing to share the type of life my wife is forced to lead.
7
The one and only person who is still prepared to live with my wife is Mr Madikizela, and I must request you to use your influence with the City Council of Johannesburg to give him permission to live at 8115 Orlando West. I must add that prior to his endorsement out of the urban area of Johannesburg, Mr Madikizela, stayed with my wife.
8
The fears I express in my letters to your predecessors were not unfounded. On several occasions my wife has been the subject of brutal night attacks from criminals whose identity is unknown to us. In this connection I wish to quote from a letter she wrote to me on 6 December 1972.
‘You must have perhaps heard from our mutual informer of the serious events which have left me quite shaken. Briefly, the house was broken into whilst I went home with the children to see my sick father. All our little valuable possessions were taken, the strange thief did extensive damage to the house, smashed to pieces what he could not take, tore down paintings from the walls, broke our glass partition, smashed the glass doors, removed books and personal documents . . .
Then at 3.30 am Sunday morning two weeks ago, three black men gained entry into the house through the same window which I had not fixed because the police had not taken the statement of the burglary. They tried to strangle me with a cloth. Had he not taken a deep breath as he bent over my neck to tie the cloth I would not have heard anything. I did not know I could scream so much, they switched off the light and fighting them off in the dark saved me. I sustained slight injuries. I was given police protection for a few days whilst an urgent application was made for some-one to stay with me. My attorneys applied for Msuthu and Nonyaniso temporarily whilst the Minister is deciding on Msuthu. However, I was subsequently granted permission for a Mr & Mrs Ntsokontsoko whom I met at work, they have been given 7 days at a time and their permit is expiring tomorrow. Our problem is that no one is prepared to share my kind of life, the situation is far worse now.’
I also quote from her letter of 20 March 1974:
‘The last attempt on my life on the 9th (i.e. 9 February) has left me quite speechless . . . The damage to the house was quite extensive. I have been battling to repair what can be repaired, the garage doors need complete replacement. The hatred with which iron doors were torn apart like pieces of wood is indescribable. It is a mystery to me how the house doors took so long to give in with such a heavy impact on them.’
These events show that the effect of the restrictions placed upon my wife and the persistent refusal of the Johannesburg City Council to allow Mr Madikizela to stay with her, have made her an easy target to a mysterious type of thug. An Alsatian dog, which she acquired at the end of 1970, was poisoned and killed quite obviously by a person who has considerable experience in dealing with dogs that are trained to do police duties and to accept food from one person only.
All the fears I expressed to your predecessor have been confirmed and today my wife lives in perpetual danger and acute anxiety. I am reluctantly compelled to request you to give her a permit to acquire a firearm for purposes of self-defence, a request which I hope you will consider fair and reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances. I might add that last year a man attempted to stab her in the streets of Johannesburg in broad daylight and she was saved only by the intervention of friends. The man was subsequently arrested, but I have been told that the charge was later withdrawn.
9
In the light of my wife’s experiences I must ask you to arrange for the house to be guarded by members of the South African Police daily from 7 pm to 6 am until Mr Madikizela moves in.
I must point out that from all the reports I have received the Security Police have acted towards my wife in a manner which I cannot accept as a proper execution of their duties. She is shadowed wherever she goes, taxi-men whom she hires to convey her to and from work are frequently interrogated and those who come to stay with her persistently harassed. Generally their attitude is
hostile and on occasions positively provocative. Your intervention could give her some respite and ease the strain.
10
In spite of all her bitter experiences my wife has no intention whatsoever of leaving the house. But I think it advisable for her to be furnished with a passport to enable her to travel abroad on holiday. Getting away from Orlando for a month or two might ease the strain and benefit her health immensely.
11
I must add that although I have now completed eleven years of my sentence, and although I have reached ‘A’ Group, the highest classification a prisoner may attain, I have never been given the privilege of a contact visit with my wife. I have been forced to discuss serious domestic problems across a glass partition, and under difficult conditions where I have to shout to be heard even in regard to highly confidential matters. Moreover, the one hour allocated for the visit is too short a period, if account is taken of our special problems. I must accordingly ask you to allow me a two-hour contact visit, with all the normal liberties and courtesies associated with such visits, for the purpose of discussing these special problems.
12
I am quite certain that if you think that my representations are reasonable and substantial, and you consider it your duty to help, all red-tape will be brushed aside and our problems could be solved with a stroke of the pen.
13
It would be quite easy for you to reject each and every one of the requests I have made. You could, for example, point out that the question of the relaxation of influx control regulations is a matter outside your competence and within the jurisdiction of the Johannesburg City Council. You could adopt the same attitude towards my request in regard to the South African Police and passports, and tell me that my wife and I should apply directly to the appropriate authorities. You could even go further to rub it in by adding that my wife, in fighting racial oppression, has deliberately invited all the troubles she is now experiencing, and that the Security Police, in giving more than ordinary attention to her movements and activities, are carrying out their normal duties under the law.
14
I am well aware that, in view of all the circumstances, my representations will have to be approached cautiously and carefully, and that a decision either way will carry a heavy responsibility. Your official capacity may demand that you should pay attention to policy and security considerations which will result in grave injustice to specific individuals. I am also aware that the decisions you arrive at in your Ministerial capacity may frequently clash with your own personal feelings in matters of this nature.
15
The representations contained in this letter are made in the knowledge and certainty that they can be approved in such matter and under such conditions as will not endanger the security of the State or the public interest.
Above all, is the fact that the central issue in this matter is that the life of another human being, of a citizen, is at stake. I feel confident that in examining my requests you will allow humanitarian considerations to override all others, and do everything in your power to enable my wife to lead at least a normal and happy life.
Yours faithfully.
Nelson Mandela 466/64
LETTER FROM NELSON MANDELA
TO THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE
25 May 1974
Dear Sir,
Further to my letter of 13 February 1974 in connection with the attempts made on my wife’s life, I have to advise that on 22 May 1974 I received the following disturbing telegram from her:
‘Another vicious attack 12 am today police investigation no arrest one face assailant seen house helper nearly died we are all right children returning to school 26/5 cheer up you are our force of strength all our love’
In my letter of 13 February I should have added the following passage from my wife’s letter of 29 April 1974:
‘I hope you have taken some steps towards the question of my younger brother Msutu. The state of anxiety in which I always am when the children are around is unbearable. Although I have learnt to expect anything to happen to me, I cannot bear the thought of the dangers my children are exposed to. My would-be killers struck four days after the children left for school last time. As a result they did not settle down at all this term, especially Zindzi who seems more scared than Zeni.’
You will readily appreciate when I say that I am very concerned about the whole matter and should be pleased if you would treat it as one of the utmost urgency.
Yours faithfully,
Nelson Mandela 466/64
CONFIDENTIAL
LETTER TO ‘SECURITY’
FROM THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF ROBBEN ISLAND231
PETITION TO THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE: NR. 913 NELSON MANDELA
1. The abovementioned prisoner had an interview with His Honourable The Minister of Justice on the 27th December 1974 during the course of which he discussed his requests in his previous petition in more detail. He was informed about the outcome of his petition but is apparently not satisfied and submit[ted] another request to the Honourable Minister – a copy of which is attached hereto.
2. His petition does not include any new information or evidence and it seems he wants to argue about the merits of his application and under these circumstances it is recommended that his request to petition The Honourable Minister not be approved.
OFFICER COMMANDING
[hand-written note]
S. O. (Security)
1. We must submit a submission to the Commissioner stating that background of his previous requests and results.
2. Recommend that it would be waste of the Minister’s time to send the attached letter any further and that the prisoner be informed accordingly.
[signed and dated 24.2.75]
LETTER FROM NELSON MANDELA
TO THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE
12 February 1975
Dear Sir,
Extracts from your letter of 13 January 1975 addressed to the Commanding Officer were read out to me.
I note (a) that my request for my wife to be granted a firearm licence was carefully considered but that you were unable to approve it; (b) that no complaint against any member of the South African Police (the Security Branch included) had been made by my wife and that no member of the South African Police (the Security Branch included) was specifically employed to watch her activities; (c) that due to shortage of manpower, the request that you arrange for members of the SAP to guard her house daily could not be acceded to, and if protection was really deemed necessary by my wife, she could be advised to approach one of the numerous private organisations which undertake services of this kind; (d) that the request that my brother-in-law be permitted to live with her was still under consideration.
In this connection I should be pleased if you would be good enough to reconsider your decision on the question of the firearm licence. It should be a matter of real concern to the police authorities that, despite persistent attacks on the house and family, the SAP with all their training, skill and experience, and with all the vast resources and modern facilities at their disposal for tracking down criminals, the culprits involved in this particular case should still be at large. I have no clear information to indicate who is really responsible for persecuting my family. When I discussed the matter with you on 27 December 1974 you repudiated any suggestion that the SAP might in any way be involved and, in the absence of concrete evidence one way or the other, I could not take the matter any further. I must also accept your statement that, owing to shortage of manpower, the SAP cannot guard the house as requested. But I cannot appreciate why you should be reluctant to assist my wife in acquiring a firearm when the police have been totally unable to give her protection in the face of a serious threat to her life.
There are literally thousands of South African women, including blacks, who have lawful access to firearms in spite of the fact that they lead normal family lives, enjoying the protection of able-bodied men whose residential areas are, comparatively speaking, wel
l-patrolled by members of the SAP and who are not exposed to any kind of danger whatsoever. You even seem to doubt whether protection is really deemed necessary by my wife notwithstanding the detailed particulars on the matter already furnished.
Bearing in mind the viciousness of the last two attacks in particular, growing concern on my part for the safety of the family is, to say the least, not unreasonable. Her health has already broken down and there are disturbing reports that the children are finding the strain difficult to bear. It seems to me that the only solution in these circumstances is to grant her a permit to acquire a firearm. I should add that even if you should be good enough for my brother-in-law to join her, which I trust you will do at your earliest possible convenience, she will still require possession of the weapon. He cannot be expected to defend the family against armed thugs with bare hands. I believe my wife would be willing to submit any reasonable conditions subject to which you might grant the permit. The firearm could for instance, be inspected at the house by the SAP at their convenience. Alternatively, she would probably be prepared to hand it to the SAP at 7am and collect it at 5pm daily. The second alternative would be quite onerous and would also deprive her of protection during daytime, and I hope you will not impose it. But it may be that she would be prepared to accept even such a stringent condition if she would thereby be able to defend herself at night. These conditions should meet any security problems the SAP might have in this regard. I might also add that I am unable to advise her to approach any of the private organisations which undertake services of this kind, solely because she cannot afford the fees charged by such organisations. She is due to be released from prison on April 13 and I must tell you that I am deeply troubled by the fact that she may have to go back to the house to face all over again the ordeals she has experienced in the past before anything is done to ensure her safety.
I was sorry to learn that you were unable to grant me permission to write to Mr Bram Fischer232 concerning his illness. I must remind you once more that he is a friend of long standing and has been good to me and family in numerous ways. I am told that his illness is a serious one and fear that I may never see him again. Writing to him now may be the only chance I have to tell him just how much his friendship has meant to me, and to let him know that at this critical time in his life my sympathy and thoughts are with him. Few things would be sweeter in his adversity than little words of comforts and encouragement from a well-wisher. Such sentiments may give him the courage and strength to fight back, and perhaps even help to save him altogether. The fact that my letter would be subjected to a double censorship should allay the anxiety that anything objectionable on security grounds may pass between us. I leave the matter entirely in your good hands again.