18661 MR. TREMJOVE

with, my lords; the Congress of Democrats was discussed and this was read into the record at page 3356 and 3357 and at page 3358 this fraternal greeting makes the point that the Freedom Charter lays down the "basis for the demo-cratic government of the people by the people. It aims

5 at the destruction of everything that is responsible for the present system of racial oppression, cheap labour and semi-Colonialism. It is necessary to destroy the system if people are to be truly free, to enjoy political expression and equal economic opportunities. Thus, an 10 enemy of the Freedom Charter is an enemy of the people. Then it deals with the Freedom Charter, my lords.

The Report itself, my lords, at page 3365 has a paragraph headed "Forward with the Freedom Charter", and that was read into the record at page 3365 to page 3367. 15 My lords, the effect of that recommendation in the Report of the National Executive is thaf'the Freedom Charter is the sum total of our aspirations. Itrs the road to a new life; it's the mirror of the future South Africa; it's no patchwork collection of demands, no jumble of reforms; 20 the Freedom Charter covers every aspect of the lives of the people. It is a statement that the new South Africa will make a complete break with the present system, and, my lords, the effect of that message at pages 3365, 6 and 7, is that they realised that the Freedom Charter is 25 going to change the position in this country fundamentally, both politically and economically* and socially,

My lords, there are a number of documents even before the Freedom Charter which show that what they were trying to get was a new system of society, and I 30 refer again, my lords - - I'll just give the references

18662 MR. TKENG-OVE

to "African Lodestar", J.D.M. 9 at pages 3143, 3144, 3145 and 3146; I read then yesterday, ay lords, where they said "What we want is a true Peoples Democracy in South Africa". Then there's an exhibit, my lords, C.M.30, it's an "Afrika journal" which was found in the possession of Mayekiso. My lords, it's the same as Exhibit N.D.Y.6, The passages were read in under C.M.30 at page 3851 and it also sets forth their vision of a new Africa, the new Africa that they want, and the passages were read in at pages 3851 and 3852.

My lords, there is the three lectures — I'll be dealing with those at a later stage A.84, A.85 and A,86 which also advocate the establishment of the kind of State called "The Peoples Democracy", to which I'll still refer, my lords. And then there are numerous documents to which the "Congress Movement" refers, as the type of State they want, as a Peoples Democracy. I think, my lords, of Exhibit A.109 - a letter found in possession of the African National Congress at page 715 of the record from the Transvaal Provincial Secretary of the Congress of the People, in which they refer to the march from Fascism towards the Peoples Democracy. There is also Exhibit A.Ill, also a letter from the Transvaal Provincial Committee to the Congress of the People, which is to the same effect as Exhibit A.109; it was read into the re-cord at page 715.

Now, my lords, we make the point that what we rely on is that they wanted a Peoples Democracy^ the phrase occurs throughout these documents, lectures, and we also make the point, my lords, that they know that

18663 MR. TRENGOVE

a Peoples Democracy is a type of State which in its very essence, apart from the question of colour, is a different type of State from the ordinary accepted meaning of a democratic State in the Western World. Many of them, my lords, try to get out of that by saying well, a Peoples Democracy if a democracy where you have a government for the people "by the people, but in Luthuli's evidence, ray lords, it is quite clear that even the African National Congressrealised that a Peoples Democracy was a term which had some significance, apart from being merely a democratic State, and at page 1330 of his evidence Luthuli is asked about this - page 13330, my lords. He is questioned as to whether he would regard the United States as a Peoples Democracy and he sa e "Maybe, my lords; I wasn't altogether clear in my own estimation; America is a Peoples Demo-cracy in the sense that it is a government of t he people by the people for the people. To that extent, but really I don't think one uses Peoples Democracy towards America, but it is". Then he's cross examined: ("Q) My Luthuli, I want . . .?— (A) My lords, I just want to say something about the ~h st point where we left off, to say it is true that the expression Peoples Democracy is generally asso-ciated, from our general knowledge, with the so called Peoples Democracies, that is true - and I don't want to appear to be disputing that general understanding, but what one was trying to say, my lords, and I'm saying it, is that the expression can be applicable to situations where you have a government such as is described for in-stance as I have indicated, and in the South Africa which some of us are looking forward to," Then he is asked:

10

15

20

25

30

I

18664 MR. TRENGOVE

("Q) Mr Luthuli, an Imperialist and Capitalist country -would the African National Congress ever describe such a country as a Peoples Democracy?— (A) My lords, I wouldnrt say -the African National Congress I think different people would use different expressions, and the attitude there - - no, the African National Congress does use the expression Peoples Democracy. (UQ) It does use it?— (A) I cannot recall an instance, "but it does use it," ("Q) The African National Congress would never call an Imperialist or a Capitalist country a Peoplas Democracy; do you accept that?— (A) Yes, I would accept that, my lords." ("Q) And whatever expression is used "by refer-ence to any existing State, it is always used by refer-ence to the so called Communist satellite countries, such as Poland, Hungary, Roumania, Czechoslovakia?— (A) I think so, my lords",

A question by his lordship Mr, Justice Bekker: (l,Q) When the African National Congress uses this expres-sion the question as I understood it is that it relates to the Communist satellite countries; do you agree with that?— (A) I agree with that, my lords." "And in agree-ing with it I say that generally expressions sometimes may be used when you describe some other State, not necessarily the Eastern democracies but generally - in fact it is in common use - I think it is so, not only by the African National Congress."

Then the question is put to hims ("Q) You won!t find a single reference to America or any of the countries of the West as a Peoples Democracy in any of the literature published by the African National Con-gress?— (A) My lords, that is very, very likely, although

10

15

20

25

30

4

18677 MR. TRENC-OVE

one cannot, of course, say that you would never; but it is very likely. For instance I quite rightly referred to the United States as a Democracy, and yet speaking in a particu!la r way another man might well say they are not a true democracy, because you have the Southern States; maybe you don't enjoy true democratic rights in the sense that the States have certain authorities; another man might say they are not a full democracy, but speaking in general a gain one would say that America is a democracy, without going into the particulars of the South and how the Negroes want the vote but have not got it . . .

Then the question is: MQ) Whenever - wherever there is exploitation of man by man one would not refer to a State as a Peoples Democracy?— (A) In general that would be so, my lords." Q) The African National Congress held the view that in a Capitalist State man is exploited by man?— (A) That is so, my lords,"

My lords, we submit that theAfrican National Congress knew very well, when it was advocating a new type of State, that it was not merely asking for the franchise; it was advocating the type of State in which man's inhumanity to man would be ended, not only politi-cally but also economically, and that that is the import-ant factor in considering to what extent they reasonably hoped that they would, even by pressure - as they put it -persuade the white electorate, and also what they thought -how far the pressure would go - what extreme point would have to be reached before they achieved that goal.

There are other lectures, my lords, such as "What every Congress member should know", Exhivit W.S.56, which was read into the record at page 930, and which

18666 MR. IKENGOVE

Mandela in his evidence said was distributed by the A.N.C. offices; Mandela's evidence is at page 15858 which also says that what they want is a People s Democracy.

Now, my lords, just referring for a moment to the Freedom Charter itself, I submit that the evidence - I might even say it's common cause - that that was the type of State that they waited in the Free dom Charter, elements of the Freedom Charter to be embodied in any new constitution vihich they sought for this country. It was the new society which had to be established after the old society had been overthrown.

Now, this Freedom Charter, my lords, has been handled by the Defence as involving very little change in the African's Claims as drawn up in 1943, and, my lords, which in effect would involve only certain amend-ments to the draft constitution - to the present constitut-ion. My lords, our submission is that itTs quite clear that the Freedom Charter is a revolutionary document, not merely, my lords, revolutionary in the sense of being different to the present situation, not merely because of the franchise, as they sought to hold out, but, my lords, that one of the most important changes in the situation was going to be the economic changes involved in the Freedom Charter,

My lords, may I - - whatever they may say at this stage, however they try to explain that away, they realised and they adopted the Freedom Charter which went much further than their Africans' Claims; they realised that this was something new, something quite different, and something which on the economic basis, which Africans Claims never dealt with, and something which because the

18677 MR. TRENC-OVE

Africans' Claims never dealt with - it couldn't ever afforded them a basis of real freedom politically and economically.

Now, my lords, that being the comment on the difference between the Freedom Charter and the document known as the Africans' Claims, is contained in the African National Congress report, Executive Report to the 1956 Conference, Exhibit A.J.I.71, and that was put to the witness Resha at page 17144, and he agrees that that part of the Executive Report was how the African National Congress viewed the position as having been changed by the adoption of the Freedom Charter from what it was when the Africans' Claims was still the basis of - - when it was still said to be the mirror of the future the mirror of the objects for which they were striving.

My lords, A.J.I. 171, the relevant passages were read into the record at page 1738 to 1739; 13738 to 13739, my lords. Now the evidence of Luthuli: ("Q) Mr. Luthuli, I have referred you to the document A.J.I. 71 which contains this draft constitution of the African National Congress, and the draft report of the National Executive for the year 1956. . .

KENNEDY J: What page is that? MR. TRENGOVE: Page 13738, my lords. Now it

deals with the Freedom Charter and refers to the fact that the Freedom Charter was adopted at a special con-ference of the African National Congress in 1956. Then it deals with and says: "The Charter now consti-tutes the basic policy of the African National Congress

18668 MR, TRENGOVE

and its Programme of Action?— (A) That is correct." (WQ) I'm reading from the Pinal Report so there may Toe slight differences " He was looking at the draft, my lords, and I was reading from theactual report, (UQ) It then deals with the difference between the Free-dom Charter and the claims set forth in Africans' Claims. It says, after referring to the struggle of the African National Congress, 'But in no case has it, the African National Congress, ever defined in clear and explicit terms the type of South Africa we fight for. it is true that in 1943 it published Africans' Claims and demanded equality amongst all sections of the population based upon the existing economic and political set-up in the country," but, my lords, Africans' Claims were going to be implemented,in their view whatever they might now think, in their view in 1956 when this report was drawn up, the purpose of Africans' Claims was that it was going to be brought into being on the basis of the exist-ing political and economic set-up in the country. Then it goes on, my lords,and deals with the document Africans' Claims. The report says: "It did not deal with the ques-tion of exactly in what manner equality could be a chieved under a system of government which vested 87$ of the land to a white minority of 2,000,000 and which forces ten million non-Europeans to share the remaining 13$. Question to Luthuli: ("Q) So it criticises Africans' Claims be-cause it does not say exactly how the inequality of land ownership should be changed". Then it goes on to say: "It left unanswered the vital question of how it is possible to achieve equality between black and white, for

18677 MR. TRENC-OVE

example changing the character of the ownership of the Gold Mining industry?— (A) That is correct,"

Then it goes on to say: "The Charter goes much further than Africans' Claims", and then it sets forth the provisions of the Charter, "The people shall govern; all National groups will have equal wealth, it shall have equal rights, and the people shall share in the country's wealth" and so on. And then the para-graph concludes: "For the first time in History the African National Congress - for the first time in the history of the African National Congress our aims and objects have been set out in the clearest and most un-inviduous terms. The question is: "Q)So that, Mr.Luthuli, that was the view of the National Executive, that there was a vital difference between Africans 1 Claims and what was set forth in this report, and that the Freedom Charter for the first time sets out the claims and objects of the African National Congress in the purest, clearest and most unambiguous terms?— (A) That is correct - that is what the National Executive thought of the Freedom Charter. I think that is correct subject to any explana-tions one might make."

And then he deals with the Programme of Action which they say has also to be amended. It deals with the new situation and the rapidly changing situation.

Now, my lords, your lordships are interested in endeavouring to assess what these people had in mind when they adopted the Freedom Charter; what they thought, what they expected, how they thought it could be imple-mented, and my lords, apart from the question of franchise they realised,fundamental as they say - fundamental to

18677 MR. TRENC-OVE

their achieving equality, there is the land, the mines, the monopoly industries as they call it. Those means of production, the means of production must be owned by the people. And* my lords, if one looks at the way in which the Freedom Charter was propagaed at the Congress of the People itself, it was emphasised, my lords, that Banks, Mines, industries, would have to be run by Peoples Committees; that's what they had in mind when they spoke of the economic clauses.

Now, my lords, I'm not dealing at the moment with the question of the justification; I am dealing with the question of reasonable expectation. Take the ques-tion of land, my lords; 87$ of "the land vested in the hands of the white people, rightly or wrongly. 13$ of the land they say in the hands of the non-whites. The Freedom Charter says the land shall be shared amongst those who work it.

It was suggested, my lords, that there - -in the evidence of Luthuli it was suggested that there would be a free economy, a free market in land, but, ny lords, in the Western Areas people had to be removed from land - 2fo of which was owned by the people actually living there, the rest of the people are tenants - - - they are moved to some other place - - the Western Areas. Look what happens there? "Now you have 87% of the land in the hands of the white people who are held out as Imperialists - - what hope was there, what reasonable expectation was there, or could there have been, that the 87$ of the land owned by the white people would be voluntarily released so that the land could be shared by those who work it?

18671 MR. TRENGOVE

r i

I'm not, my lords, concerned with the justice or otherwise of their claims. That is not a matter which we are de-bating. We are dealing with the expectations inthe minds of these people who have set upon an unconstitutional course to achieve that. We say, my lords, that they never believed or accepted that the whites would agree to their own economic ruination, as the whites sawit. I'm not dealing with the question of whether they were right or not - - but we cannot on the one hand hold out the white man as being a selfish, sadistic, brutal, ruthless individual, and then on the other hand expect him to share 80$ of the land which he is holding with the people. You would only achieve that position, my lords, if you have overthrown the ruling class. You will achieve that not with their co-operation, you will a chieve that by overthrowing them - over their dead bodies, as the African National Congress said their removal from the WesternAreas was going to be achieved. That is what they believed. It's far more than the land, the monopoly industries - the mines and the factories -the means of production. My lords, what hope, what expectation did these people have?

And again, my lords, this statement of Luthuli's, that they were relying on the innate goodness of -the human heart - whatever that was - - if they did, my lords, it doesn't appear anywhere in their speeches or in any of their documents. The opposite appears, my lords, and if that is so, that we have to judge them, as we say we do, by their expectation at the time when they propagated the Freedom Charter, and when they adopted

10

15

20

25

30

18672 MR. TRENGOVE

the Freedom Charter - if at 1hat stage one must Helve into their minds and judge "by their actions what they said and thought, what they expected, what they reason-ably expected, my lords, then there can be ho doubt that it was the last thing that they thought, that the Capitalists who owned the mines, the industries - that they would submit unless it was at the point of a pistol. It would have been different, my lords, had they through-out their campaigns said rWe know the white man, we know the Capitalists, we know the aggressors; he will meet us if we are moderate in our demands.' That would have been quite a different situation, but, my lords, the point that I wish to make is that it's no part of their argument to come along and say everybody should get the vote, and there are many people, my lords, many white people who may agree that everybody should get the vote, but if they are told, my lords, "That if you give us the vote 87$ of the land will have to be shared amongst those that work it, and if you give us the vote the monopoly industries and the banks are going to be in the hands of the people, then, my lords, it becomes quite a different matter, and one cannot divorce the political implications of the Freedom Charter from the economic implications. Both are required for freedom, both are required for peace, freedom and democracy in this country - the one without the other would be valueless. And at the con-ference tables, at the negotiation table, one has to work on the basisof what these people say - "We want out vote because by the vote we want your land, we want your industries, We want your monopoly industries; and we respectfully submit, my lords, that that hope they

18673 MR. TSENGOVE

never entertained; they knew, my lords, that yhey could only achieve that by a seizure of power and by the over-throw of the State, and that, my lords, is why their documents say that they wanted to seize power; that's why they talk of the overthrow of the ruling class, and that's why, my lords, they say that the land will be divided amongst those that work it, and that the factories will be in the hands of the people, because they are the people, the African National Congress.

My lords, take for instance the document E.P#M, 2g, the memo, on the draft constitution. Now this document, my lords, was first put to the witness Gouws by the Defence in his evidence at page 2617. Gouws was cross examined; we put in an Exhibit E.P.M. 29 which was found in the possession of Moretsele, and then in cross examination said: "(Q) Mr. Gouws, another exhibit which you hand in as E.P.M.29, that is the memo, of the draft constitution; it is undated, it is unsigned. Por what it is worth I read from the top of the page. The record states: "This memorandum on the proposed constitution says - - throughout it refers to the A.N.C. so it is clear what it refers to, and that is the draft constitution of the African National Congress. The draft constitution enables us also for the first time to have a really first class office which can function as the headquarters of the Congress", and then it deals with this draft Constitution.

Nov/, my lords, that draft constitution was sub-sequently put to a number of witnesses; it was put to Conco at page 11168 as Exhibit E.P.M. 29 and he said he'd never seen a memo on the draft constitution, but subse-quently after that, at 11284, the same document - that

18674 MR. TRENG-OVE

was Exhibit T.T«20, which waafound in his possession was put to him, the same as E.P.M. 29, and he said that it was most likely that this document was a memo on the draft constitution of the L.N.C. which was sent from the Head Office.

Now your lordships will remember that they were considering a change of their constitution at that stage, and this is a memo on that constitution coming from Head Office, and my lords, at page 2619 of the record, of G-ouws1 evidence, the Crown in re-examination read a pas-sage from this memo, into the record, paragraph 3 of the draft constitution: "We have got to realise that we are aiming at the seizure of power over the whole country, and that should be our outlook. In our programmes we have achieved this, but not in our organisational thinking.

My lords, there was another paragraph which was read in there, "For that reason, although the Constitu-tion makes no mention of local organs and administration to co-ordinate branches on behalf of the National Execu-tive Committee there is provision for the National Exe-cutive Committee itself to constitute such organs in its discretion, bearing in mind the aims and objects of Congress which are to govern this country in the name of the people in t he shortest possible time."

Now, my lords, we are not concerned at the moment with whether that constitution was adopted and whether it was not adopted; what we are concerndd with, my lords,is that in this memo, on the draft constitution two points are made. They want to seize the power over the whole country and, my lords, it is the object of Congre

18675 MR. TRENGOVE

to govern the country in the name of t he people in the shortest possible time. an

My lords, the seizure of power by/organisa-tion which sets itself on the road unconstitutionally - which by means of unconstitutional methods aims to change the constitution - the seizure of power, if that is its object, means only one thing, my lords, and that is that they had set themselves on a course of achieving the overthrow of the State by violence, against thp will of those that had power. That also explains, my lords, why one continually finds in their documents the expres-sion Overthrow of the ruling class" .

BBKKBR J: Couldn't they get seizure of power by a sit down national strike? You say seizure of power in this context means an overthrow of the State by viol-ence?

MR. TREMjOVE; Yes, ay lord, BEKKER J; Why could it not be interpreted to

mean a seizure of power, the overthrow of the State by a national strike? Passive resistance. .

MR. TREHGOVE: My lords, it didn't mean that to them. My lords, this document speaks of a seizure of power. In the first place, let as put it this way, . . . .

BBKKBR J; Are we on the same wave length, Mr. Trengove?

MR. TRENGOVE: Yes, my lords, I think we are. BEKKER Jt Your submission is the use of the

words "seizure of power" here, you say, means overthrow of the State by violence,

MR. TRENGOVE: Yes, my lord. BEKKER J: Now

18677 MR. TRENC-OVE

MR. TRENGOVB: I say that, my lords, because this is the A.N.C. which says that. They say "We have embarked on the unconstitutional road; we are seizing power; we want to govern." Now they've said, my lords, that "We know that whatever we do the white ruling minority are going to act viciously, they are going to act sadistically . . ."

BEKKER J: No, I don't think we're on the same wave length, Mr. Trengove. If in the lightof the cir-cumstances which you canvass, you submit that seizure of power in all the circumstances may mean this, then I can understand it, but I thought you merely confined yourself to E.P.M. 29.

MR. TRENGOVE: Yes, my lords, I do, because I say seizure of power excludes any granting of power, either by the Government or the white minority. . .

BEKKER J: Voluntarily . . . MR. TRENGOVB: Seizure means that they are going

to take it against the will of those that have the power; the people that have the power are the Government, and the white ruling class. The power is going to be seized from them, and not, my lords, at the ballot box.

BEKKER J: Negotiation? After pressure?. MR. TRENGOVE: That's not a seizure, my lord.

My lords, may I make this point quite clear. If you beat down the Government on to its knees or the ruling class into submission, so that they don't have any option, they have to submit, they have to hand over, as it were - -my lords, if you get them into that position that would be a seizure; the Government and the country - the people - the white minority that rule cannot carry on - - they

18677 MR. TRENC-OVE

are brought to their knees, they can't aarry on they are brought to their knees and they either have to fight to death or they've got to give in. That would be a seizure, my lords. And, my lords, what does this phrase that they started off with mean change of heart, and then later change of mind? By legitimate pressure, they say. What could that mean, my lords, if it covers action that would amount to a seizure of power or an overthrow of the ruling class. Words like that lose their mean-ing, my lords, when you say you are going to negotiate with a man who is not in a position to negotiate, and he's not in a position to negotiate because you have caused that state of affairs. Negotiation, my lords, unless people are at war, implies that the people must be free to negotiate. One doesn't talk, ny lords, of getting rights by negotiation if you hold a pistol at a person's head, and they were excluding the possibility that they would get to a point where the electorate, the white people, would without any persuasion negotiate. My lords, take the case of demonstrations in order to bring their position to the mind of the electorate. Assuming, iy lords, there is an Actwhich affects them in a particular way and they think theycan persuade the powers that be to change their minds by one or two or three acts of protest, bringing it to thw attention of the people - - a kind of demonstration of protest - - that, my lords, one might say would still be a form of persuasion, because it acts merely to illus-trate something; but when your actions are such that they are directed at placing the other party with who you alledgedly want to negotiate into a position in which he cannot negotiate, if that is your object . . . .

18677 MR. TRENC-OVE

BEKKER J: That's capitulation. MR. TRENGOVE; That's capitulation, ay lord, and

it's fatuous to call that negotiation. BEKKER J: Yes, well, that I can follow. But is

that violence? MR. TRENGOVE; My lords, that is what these

people were after, capitulation, a nd violence would only "be avoided if the white people were prepared to capitulate at the earliest stage. There was no question of surrender or capitals tion on the part of the African National Con-gress. If things got too hot they were not going to with-draw or capitulate; for thea there was no comproaise. They were not going to capitulate.

BEKKER J: I follow that arguaent, Mr. Trengove; I was really on a very narrow submission which you aade, that the mere use of the words "seizure of power" means violence, and nothing else.

MR. TRENGOVEs Yes, my lords, it means violence and nothing els e, as they saw the situation in this country. That's why, my lords, I've been dealing with that - - in what light did they see the white oppressor? How did they view the Government?

BEKKER J: Yes, perhaps I didn't follow you. When you made this submission you said, in this document, as I understood it, only looking at this document -nothing else - the words "seizure of power" meant violence.

MR. TRENGOVE; I apologise, my lord. BEKEER J; Yes, well, I may have to apologise to

you because I might have misunderstood you. MR. TRENGOVE;: No, my lords, if one reads this

in context, coming from the A.N.C. office . . . . (COURT ADJOURNED FOR 15 MINUTES).

18677 MR. TRENC-OVE

ON THE COURT RESUMING: MR. TRENGOVE: My lords, this document that I

was referring to - of course that should be read in conjunc-tion with all the other activities in the documents of Congress. For instance, my lords, this B.259 to which is annexed this memorandum of the Anti-Pass Campaign, which was adopted by - - the evidence has been, my lords, that it was originally drafted by the African National Congress and then settled by the National Consultative Committee -page 1341 of the record; it deals with the struggle against Passes and that will be a long drawn out war, and then it concludes. "It follows that the victory in the struggle against Pass Laws must not be looked for in any minor skirmish against the enemy. In a long drawn out battle there would be many minor victories, many defeats, many advanves, many retreats, but final victory for the people which means the end of the cheap labour system in South Africa can only be finally achieved by the overthrow of the ruling class and by the achievement of the Freedom Charter as the ruling policy of South Africa." Seize the power, overthrow the ruling class and replace the government of the few by a government of many, as is stated in this lecture "What every Congress member should know", W.S.56, read into the record at page 930, my lords. It's another lecture, my lords, "What every Congress member should know how South Africa is governned", issued by the A.N.C, offices, according to Mandela, referred to a little earlier this morning; and it says under the heading "How South Africa is governed" - page 930 - "Today the power of government of the State which makes the laws is not held by the people; the power is held by the ruling class, the

18680 MR. TRENGOVE

white ming owners living both in South Africa and in Britain and in America. It is held by the wealthy owners of large scale factories and financial concerns; it is held by the farmers. These classes are represented by the Nationalist and the United Parties. The power of State is not exercised for the benefit of the people, it is used permanenently to subject the people; it is used against the people to e nsure that the profits of the few are maintained. Congress aims to replace this govern-ment of a few with a government of the Peoples Democracy. In a peoples democratic State the power of State will be exercised by the people; that is by the working people of all colours, together with all other democratic classes who will work for the changes set out in the Freedom Charter. This will be a government ofthe people as a whole. Persons oppressed and of the exploited classes will be used to achieve their maximum wellbeing, and to prevent the few exploiters from regaining power."

But, my lords, if one sees this lecture in the setting of the Freedom Charter - this was after the Free-dom Charter had been adopted apparently because it talks of the changes set out in the Freedom Charter - - it holds out that the ruling classes are firstly the white mine owners; the mines have to pass from their hands into the hands of the people. The second group of people who constitute the power of government are the wealthy owners of large scale factories and financial concerns - monopoly industries have to be in the hands of the people, they've got to be taken from these people who wield the power. And finally, the third group

18677 MR. TRENC-OVE

of people who rule the country are the Afrikaner farmers; their land has got to be shared by the people. So that, my lords, in order to render the ruling class who hold the power of State - in order to render them effective the three groups who own the means of production have to be deprived of those means of production. That, my lords, is going to happen and when that happens the power would have passed into the hands of the people, and that is going to be achieved by overthrowing this class, by seizing this power and replacing them as the ruling class by the people. That is what the object was, and I submit, my lords, that on the programme of the African National Congress they knew that this would involve the violent overthrow of that class.

Now, my lords, I want to step off the evidence on the Freedom Charter, except to refer your lordships to the evidence of Luthuli on certain implica-tions of the Freedom Charter, which shows that they realised the very vast implications it would have in our economic system. My lords, the paragraphs are firstly in regard to Luthuli, page 11536 - - that was in chief, where he talks about the Charter definitely and unequivo-cally visualises the establishment of a Socialist State -11536 to 11538; and then, my lords, in cross examina-tion various clauses of the Freedom Charter are dealt with, and his evidence in that aspect appears at page 13742 of the record to page 13758.

Conco, also cross examined on the nature of the Freedom Charter, at pages 11143 to 11445, was asked to compare the Freedom Charter with the lectures in his evidence

18677 MR. TRENC-OVE

BEKKER J: Which lectures? The three lectures? MR. TRENGOVE; The three lectures, my lord. The

effect of Conco's evidence was that there is a very close similarity between the State as set forth in the lectures and the State they want, and he also agreed that a Peoples

5 Democracy was as he defined it. My lords, I may have to come back to this finally, but I would at this stage go over to another topic, as to how they would then achieve their object.

My lords, that deals firstly with the allegation 10 of unconstitutional action. In paragraph 8(a) of the Summary of Pacts, my lords, we state that it was part of the policy of each of the above organisations mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 7 that would include the African National Congress, to achieve one or more of the following 15 objects, namely: to subvert and overthrow the State and make preparation for a violent revolution a gainst the State; to disturb, impair or endanger the security or authority of the State; to hinder and hamper the State in the enforcement of laws, the maintenance of peace and 20 order, and to oppose and resist the authority of the State,in particular the power of the State to make and enforce laws.

Now, your lordships will remember that in regard to one of these paragraphs we were asked to give 25 the additional particulars as set out in o8r Policy Schedule, relating specifically to violence, but the other allegations still stand. The other allegations in this paragraph, that it must be the policy of the organisations to subvert and overthrow the State, disturb or impair

18677 MR. TRENC-OVE

or endanger the security or authority of the State, to hinder or hamper the State in the enforcement of its laws, maintenance of peace and order and to oppose and resist the authority of the State, in particular the power of the State to make and enforce laws now we say, my lords, that in proving our conspiray ve also state that the factors which are relevant and which the Court is entitled to take into consideration in arriving at a conclusion as to whether the conspiracy to overthrow the State by violence has been proved, is the fact that the organisation wanted to achieve changes in the Constitution unconstitutionally, by unconstitutional actions, and that is why, my lords, we set out in our Summary of Pacts the facts that we rely on, that this was an organisation which as part of its policy wanted to disturb, impair or endanger the security and authority of the State; that this was an organisation which as part of its policy hin-dered and hampered the State in the enforcement of laws, and the maintenance of peace and order, and that this was an organisation which opposed the authority and resisted the authority of the State in making laws and enforcing those laws.

It is relevant because it is indicative of the path onwhich they had set themselves to achieve their aims, my lords. And we say it becomes particularly rele-vant when one not only has regard to the fact that they used these methods towards their aims, but that they used them knowing what the reaction of the State to this type of unconstitutional attack would be.

My lords, paragraph 8 (b) of the Summary of Pacts says "The ebo se was the policy of the African

18684 MR. TBENGOVE

Hational Congress at and throughout the period of the Indictment, and 8 (c), my lords, further alleges that it was part of the policy to achieve the aforesaid aims and purposes enumerated in paragraph 8 (a) above by one of the means set forth in paragraph (b) of the Indictment, 4 (c) of the Indictment, my lords. And we say, my lords, that the matters which I have just enumerated were to be achieved, inter alia, by the methods set forth in para-graph 4 - part B - of the Indictment, where we set forth the sponsoring of the Congress of the People and the adoption of the Freedom Charter; the recruiting, enlist-ing and preparingfor acts of violence of the Freedom Volunteers; advocating and propagating unconstitutional and illegal action through the use of violence; orga-nising, participating in various campaigns against the existing laws; inciting to illegal and violent resist-ance against such laws & the administration of such laws. And we mention the laws, my lords; promoting feelings of discontent and unrest, or hatred or hostility between the various sections of the population; advocating Marxism-Leninism, and preparing and conditioning the population for the overthrow of the State.

Now, my lords, another paragraph which is also relevant to this is paragraph 3 (a) of the Policy Sche-dule. Your lordships will find that at page 22 of the Policy Schedule, in which we say as part of the policies -as part of the matters relating to specific violent policies per se - - we say "The African National Congress accepted and propagated the view that the new form of State desired by them was to achieve by extra-parliamentary

18685 MR. TRENGOVE

unconstitutional and illegal action including the use of 1 violence, and that the population of the Union of South Africa, more particularly the non-European section thereof, having been prepared and conditioned for the overthrow of the State by violence. The African National Congress as part of their s truggle for so called freedom and libera- 5 tion in fact encouraged, propagated, advocated the use of extra-parliamentary unconstitutional and illegal action including the use of violence, with the obja ct of promoting and furthering the achievement of a new form of State and also as part of its policy of preparing, conditioning the popula- -1-0

tion of the Union of South Africa, more particularly the non-European section, for the overthrow of the State by violence.

The Crown then repeats the averment set forth in paragraph 6 of the Summary of Facts. Those paragraphs, my lords, are those dealing with the Defiance Campaign. We incorporate the Summary of Pacts, paragraph 6, relating to the Defiance Campaign into this allegation as part of our facts from which we infer the violent policy.

O A

Then we deal with certain particulars, my lords. Now, my lords, certain admissions were also made by the Defence in this regard and those are set forth firstly in paragraph 10 of the admissions made on behalf of the accused. Paragraph 10, page 64-2, "That the African National Congress accepted the view that extra 25 parliamentary activity should be resorted to and advocated and carried on." Your lordships will see this relates to unconstitutional action.

Paragraph 13 of the Admissions read in at 1 page 1399» Vol. 7? says, admits that the organisations 3 0

18696 MR. TRENGOVE

advocated extra parliamentary action as a means of achieving a change of government as desired by them, as set out in paragraph 9 in the first set of admissions.

My lords, the first set was really that they carried on extra-parliamentary actions. The second part of the admissions is that that action was directed at achieving a change of government as desired by them.

And paragraph 9 that they refer to, my lords, says "The African National Congress demanded the substi-tution of a new and radically different government and in particular advocated a system of government based on universal adult suffrage; and (b), the abolition of all forms of racial discrimination,"

Now, my lords, it's common cause therefore on the admissions - the evidence of the Crown we submit proves that beyond any doubt - that the African National Con-gress Movement wanted at the very lowest new and radical changes in the constitution. The object of their struggle was economic, political and social equality. They wanted a State based on the abolition of man's inhumanity to man, and that they said could not be got under the pre-sent system based as it was on the 1910 Constitution.

My lords, Leibbrandt's case - I've already re-ferred to page 19 of the typed Judgment which says the type of change wanted is factor 1 of the many factors that could be taken into consideration.

Now, my lords, as far as the methods are con-cerned, the African National Congress takes its stand on a document that has become known as the "1949 Programme of Action", Exhibit J.D.M. 24. Now, the object of that

10

15

20

25

30

18677 MR. TRENC-OVE

Programme of Action was National Liberation. The weapons to be employed, according to that document, are immediate and active boycotts, strikes, civil disobedience, non co-operation and such other means as may bring about the accomplishment and realisation of our aspirations."

Now, my lords, we submit that it is very clear that right from the outset the African National Congress realised that they were adopting methods which were un-constitutional, which may, if the necessity arises, be illegal in the sense of being against some Statute, and that they were means which would involve the loss of life, and that notwithstanding that they were prepared to accept that the basis of their struggle would mean a programme embodying means by which they wanted to force and coerce the State or the Government into submitting or capitulating to their demands for a radical and funda-mental change in the present form of State.

Nov/, my lords, Exhibit J.D.M.24 is the Programme of Action as such. The document was handed in, M.K.37, and also C.194* dealing with the exhibits presently, my lords - - M.K.37 is the same as exhibit C.194, and C.194 is a stencil which was found in the offices of the South African Congress of Democrats -a stencil of a roneoed document, and that stencil was cyclostyled and copy of the pencil was read into the record at page 1663 (a). The cyclostyled copy was made by the police,

M.K.37, my lords: one was put into the record at page 3114, paragraph 16 - vol. 16, my lords. Now, my lords, if one compares,and attached to M.K.37 is a Press statement on the Programme of Action, and

18677 MR. TRENC-OVE

that Press statement differs from the M.K.37 itself, in that it adds three paragraphs on economic,educational and cultural matters. But for the rest it is the same as J.D.M.24, my lords.

Now, my lords, if one compares the Exhibits J.D.M.24, M.K.37 and C.194, it becomes clear that Exhibit J.D.M.24 is the Programme of Action as published, and it corresponds in its content to the Press Statement at-tached to the first document which forms part of M.K.37.

M.K.37 and the stencil C.194 are on the same a motion for the Programme of Action, which was

adopted at Bloemfontein in 1949. Now this stencil C.194 and the first part of M.K.37, the motion dealing with the Programme of Action, the forms of struggle, has as its concluding paragraph paragraph 5 which reads: "lastly, Congress realises that ultimately the people will be brought together by the inspired leadership, courage and boldness even to the extent of suffering imprisonment and death for the cause." That paragraph, my lords, does not appear in the Programme of Action, and in place of that is a corresponding paragraph which says - paragraph 7: "Congress realises that ultimately the people will be brought together by the inspired leadership under the banner of t-fee- African Nationalism with courage and deter-mination."

Now, ay lords, we say that it is quite clear - that it was quite clear to the African National Congress - as it would be to anybody, my lords, embarking on that programme - those methods for the achievement of National Freedom which involves these radical andconstitutional

18689 MR. TRENGOVE

changes - if one does seek to achieve that along unconsti-tutional paths, then one must be prepared to face prison and death. They realised the implications - those people who adopted this programme realised the implications of this Charter, this programme, from the very outset. Only one wonders, my lords, why the words were omitted from the Press statement.

Now, my lords, they realised that mass action of the nature envisaged by their programme, that mass action would probably lead to violent conflict. They had their own interpretation of Bulhoek; they knew of the Bulhoek disaster; they were aware of the consequences of the 1922 Mineworkers Strike on the Rand, and they had the experience of the Mineworkers Strike on the Rand in 1946.

My lords, they knew and realised that the course of conduct which they intended pursuing, and which they intended putting into operation relentlessly, and on an ever increasing scale, was a course of conduct that was in its very nature subversive, and was a course of conduct which no State and no Government would tolerate. My lords, they adopted this Programme of Action before the Witxieshoek Disaster of 1950; they adopted this Programme of Action before the stay at home in 1950 and 1951; before the riots in Port Elizabeth, Kimberley and East London, and they cannot, my lords, say that because of Government action in those instances this Programme of Action was forced upon them. They cannot say, my lords, as they tried to explain in t he case of Kenya, that because of certain actions they were forced to adopt certain measures. Even before Witzieshoek, before the stay at homes, before

10

15"

20

o 5

30

18677 MR. TRENC-OVE

the riots, they already expected suffering, imprisonment and death in embarking on this plan of campaign.

BEKKER J; Well, isn't the evidence that they embarked on this Programme of Action because supplica-tions, petitions and interviews brought no success?

MR. TRENGOVE: That was the motive, my lords. That is what they say, my lord.

BEKKER J; And for that reason they — in that sense this was forced upon them, because the other means didn't help at all.

MR. TRENGOVE; That is quite correct, mylord, but it was forced upon them not by a Fascist Government, it was forced upon them re fore this Government became Fascist ^ — it was forced upon them by an Imperialist or Capitalist Government. That is the point, my lord. In many of these documents and in many of the speeches they indicate that they are taking action against a particular government for a particular law; in the Defiance Campaign they sought, my lords, to say that the Defiance Campaign was directed at particular laws. It might have been directed at particular laws, but it was part of a programme, my lords; not directed at a particular government, not directed at particular laws, it was part of a programme directed at an attack on our society based as it was on the Constitution, and on the contradictions, as they saw it, inherent in a Capitalist and Imperialist society.

Now, my lords, the fact that they knew and realised what the consequences of their actions were going to be, and as they realised that any government

J 18700(a) MR. TRENGOVE

would be obliged to takestrong measures to suppress and 1 to stamp out activities which were subversive, that, ray lords, is confirmed by the lecture "Political Organisation", Exhibit B.25, which w as read into 1he record at pages 1175 to 1181. My lords, "Political Organisation" was found at more than one place - it's P.D.N,110, Exhibit 5

N.R.M.38, and Mandela in his evidence at page 15849 to 15850 said that this document was a lecture, it was pre-pared as one of a series of five some time during 1952 or early in 1953; he doesn't know exactly who drew up the lecture, but someone in the Transvaal Provincial Executive, and this lecture, my lords, "Political Orga-nisation" . . .

BEKKER J: I'm sorry, it was drawn up by some-one in the Provincial Executive. . .

MR. TRENGOVE: The task was assigned to some 1 5

one - he doesn't know exactly who the person was someone on the Transvaal Provincial Executive, my lord, to draw up a series of lectures of which this was one.

BEKKER J: A.N.C. I suppose? MR. TRENGOVE: A.N.C. ,my lord, yes. Now, 2 0

ray lords, this in fact deals with the efficacy of the various forms of s truggle which were set out in the Pro-gramme of Action.

BEKKER J: Does the witness indicate at all for what purpose this was prepared? 2 5

MR. TRENGOVE: Lecture notes, ray lord. BEKKER J: Por whom? MR. TRENGOVE: I'm not sure whether he said so

my lords, if I could just have a look at his evidence . . .

J

18692 18700(a) MR. TRENGOVE

page 15849 of the record, my lord; I an told by my learned friend that that is in fact what Mandela said. Theywere prepared for political e ducation of the A.N,C. My lords, apparently there were going to be a series of five lectures, of which this was one, by various authors.

Now, firstly, my lords, paragraphs 1 and 2 of this lecture. Theywere read in, my lords, at page 1175 of the record. It says: "A thousand outside factors, not under the control of those who launch the struggle will arise to . . . . A world war or t he threat of it; a depression and unemployment; an election, a strike or a struggle somewhere else; all these affects the course, and the future of any political struggle. No struggle can hope to succeed if it is rigid from the start, that it is unable or unwilling to respond to changing circumstances. A plant that does not bend before the storm snaps and dies. A plan that does not rise again in the Sun after the storm gets trampled under foot. In a long drawn out political struggle it is essential that forms of struggle be made not on eternal principles, but on the needs of the struggle at each stage of its development and as the form changes, to meet changing situations."

Now, it is quite clear according to this lec-ture that the point that is being made, my lords, is that when you embark on a struggle of this nature it follows in the very essence of an unconstitutional struggle that there are factors which are beyond your control. You cannot say, my lords, that you have complete con-trol of a situation when you embark on a struggle of

18693 MR. TRENGOVE

this nature, and, ray lords, the forms of struggle . . . BEKKER J: Is this struggle generally, or just

an unconstitutional struggle? MR. TRENGOVE: Any struggle, my lords. BEKKER J; Any struggle? MR. TRENGOVE; Any struggle, but, my lords, if

you embark on an unconstitutional struggle you are creat-ing a dangerous situation - you are creating an inflamma-ble situation, and your responsibilities for what happens become all the more serious; your responsibility for the consequences becomes more and more relevant. If I embark on something which is legal there are certain things I do not expect; if I engage in a conflict with the State there are things which may happen over which I have no control. I know that when I am embarking on the struggle. And the forms of the struggle, my lords, are not based upon internal principles, but on the needs of the struggle at each stage of its eevelopment. . . .

I suggest, my lords, that the internal principles on which the struggle needn't necessarily be based - - if the internal principle of a nonsviolent struggle, which has not been stated in the Programme of Action, be the basis of their struggle . . . .

Now the first of the forms of struggle con-sidered in the lecture is passive resistance. The lec-ture states that it is best known as a tactic evolved by the great Indian leader Ghandi, first in South Africa and later in India, but the lecture deals with the efficacy of this method of struggle. The lecture says, my lords, that passive resistance means carrying out a

MR. TRENGOVE 18694

law or regulation and suffer its consequences without hitting back; for instance, deliberately breaking the law as a symbolic act of protest.

BEKKER J; Against it? MR. TRENGOVE; Against it, my lordi The lecture

points out, my lords, that this method can be a powerful weapon for awakening people's consciousness and arousing their support. It's a good method, my lords, I'm not quoting verbatim from the report at the moment - - it's a good method for preparing the people for future strug-gles by teaching that a readiness to sacrifice is always the price of victory in a struggle. It can act as a lever to move the whole struggle forward to mass action af other types. But the lecture points out, my lords, that this type of action has certain limitations, and the lecture says in unambiguous terms at page 11716 - sub-paragraph (c) - "Often, however, passive resist-ance is a weapon which serves not to whip up the enthu-siasm and action of the people but to damp down •the desire for mass action, and to change it to rigid indivi-dual acts of sacrifice of leaders. This can serve only to disillusion the masses and destroy the will to struggle. The history of passive resistance, especially of Ghandi's passive resistance movement in India, proves that it is only an effective weapon when it is used to build up the Movement and to prepare the people for other forms of mass action in their struggle.

So that, my lords, passive resistance as a method is merely the beginning; it's part of the prepara-tion of the masses for other foms of unconstitutional forms of struggle.

10

15

25

30

18677 MR. TRENC-OVE

The end, they realised, cannot - - they accept that the end cannot be achieved merely by passive resist-ance as Ghandi knew it.

The other next form of struggle, my lords, which I want to refer to in this lecture is the boycott. Now, my lords, boycott is described as a form of passive resist ance. It's a refusal to co-operate in the co-operation of law, custom or regulation, and it's interesting to note, ay lords, that this lecture does not concern itself with economic boycott or economic sanctions, and it seems to confirm what Prof. Matthews said in his evidence -as he indicated in his evidence - that when the Programme of Action was adopted in 194-9 theboycott envisaged then was not economic sanctions, to exert some form of pressure but I submit, my lords, that the African National Con-gress had in mind this type of boycott when it adopted its Programme of Action. Then they distinguish, my lords, between the efficacy of two types of boycott, a boycott which consists of a mere withdrawal from activities as a silent protest. The lecture rejects this type of boycott as an effectibe weapon, s ayirgthat such boycott as this can never produce a change; it can only act as a demonstration. A hundred percent effective boycott can only be achieved by intensive organisation and action.

Now, my lords, they don't want to use the boycott merely as a demonstration; they don't merely want to make the white oppressors aware of their conditions; it was not just a protest or a demonstration. That, they say, that type of boycott will not bring change because that type of boycott appeals to the mind and the heart

\

18696 MR. TRENGOVE

- that's my interpretation, my lords - - it is not the type of boycott which is a pressure. Then the lecture deals with another type of boycott; it says- - it calls it active boycott, "When boycotters do not withdraw from action but enter into vigorous action to make a law un-workable and thus to force its change. A mass refusal ^ to pay taxes, a mass burning of passes; this type of boycott is not passive. It is not an armchair act of protest, it is a mass action requiring preparation and sacrif ice.

How w e submit, my lords, that this type of -*-0

boycott, this type of mass action which is directed towards the authority of the State to enforce laws, the purpose of which is to make the law unworkable as the Programme says - that type of boycott is a direct attack upon the majestus, the Sovereignty of the State, and upon its right to enforce laws.

BEKKER J; Depending' on the intention? MR. TRENGOVE; Yes, my lord. And that is

what they say is the active boycott, my lords. J '/Now, my lords, that becomes worse if the object

is not only to make specific laws unworkable, but it be-comes worse if this type of boycott is used as a means not only to change the laws but to change the constitution. Aril that is why we said, my lords, in our Summary of Pacts that one of the things which the African National Congress had in its mind was to coerce the Government and to resist its law making ability.

But, my lords, the Programme of Action doesn't stop there, A third method - the lecture speaks of a third means which is strike action, and the lecture

20

25

30

18697 MR. TKEMxOVE

points out that strike action, which in this case became a sympathetic stay at home - strike action is essentially a weapon of industrial, shop and farm workers against the bosses, but,the lexture points out, that type of strike action can be turned into a method of political struggle against the ruling class.

So that, my lords, they start off with the strike action in the ordinary sense, the worker having some grievance; the farm worker having some grievance; the industrial worker - the mineworker, having some grievance; his strike action would be a matter between him and the boss, but the existence of that conflict of interests between the employee, the worker and the employer, that can be used and turned intoa political struggle against the ruling class, against the State, and how do they do it? How can it be done? Page 1178 of the record shows: (l)" Strike action is essentially a weapon of industrial, shop, farm workers against the bosses for better wagesand conditions, but it can be turned into a weapon of political struggle against the ruling class by (a) the introduction of political de-mands which the bosses and the Government both oppose; (b) widening the action in a single factory or industry to action in whole districts or the whole country for political demands.

So what is it that they make use of, ay lords? They make use of the conflict of interests between the worker and the boss and they make use of the political masses - the Government and the ruling class, the bosses, arraigned on the one side, and the worker on the other, and that enables them to use this

J

18700(a) MR. TRENGOVE

economic weapon as a political weapon a gainst the State, 1 against the ruling class.

My lords, then they point out - they give examples as to how this action was used politically, and it says in the record: "Up and including the change of Government widening action in a single factory or industry to w hole 5

districts or the whole country for political demands up to and including the change of government ; for instance, Finland, Belgium - the May Day, Freedom Day strike was a political strike, designed to demonstrate the will of the people for political demands; that such a strike carried on would not be just a demonstration, but would initiate a struggle with the workers on the one side and the employers and the Government on the other, and the lecture then points out that this political strike enables one to draw all classes of the Nationally oppressed side on to the one side.

And then, my lords, in sub-paragraph (d) they say: "Strike action represents a direct clash be-tween the working class and the ruling class for mastery, can and often does lead to rebellion, revolution and ^ armed clashes, since the ruling class will resort to violence if it thinks its rule is threatened. Such a situation for example was seen in the African Mineworkers strike. The whole apparatus of State; its police force, the Native Affairs Department, the Press, the Radio 2 5

ranged itself on the side of the bosses, trying to make the strike out to be an armed rebellion of the workers. No consideration of laws or justice prevented the Govern-ment from using the most brutal measures to smash the

18699 18700(a) MR. TRENGOVE

< m

strike. The workers, faced with such an attack, often 1

find their peaceful strike transformed into a minor war - a civil war - in spite of themselves. This was the situation on the Rand in 1922 when European workers headed by miners organised a general strike. Armed force was used against them by the Government. The strikers in 5 turn organised armed detachments to defend themselves and prevent the smashing of the strike. The strike turned into

fc, a civil war in which the Government came out victorious because the white workers refused to unite with the black for the demands of the non-Europeans for liberation." 10 Very little consideration, my lords, that the mineworkers strike was an act of Treason for which people were sentenced to death. The strike of 1922, my lords. They were found guilty, my lords, of Treason, but that's of little consequence, it's represented here to the mem- 15 bers of the African National Congress that the Mineworkers strike of 1922 was an attack by the Government on the strikers, and it would have been successful if the white workers had united with the blacks,

Now, my lords, it's quite clear from this docu- 20 ment that the African National Congress fully realised

the consequences of political strike action, of strike action as a political weapon - - - they knew, my lords, at the outset that that type of action could and probably would involve the country - - would involve 25 them in a violent clash with the State; that if masses are used against the State it could turn into a war, into a rebellion; it could turn the country into a blood bath, but that did not deter them.

18677 MR. TRENC-OVE

My lords, if you embark upon a programme which has certain consequences, probable consequences or likely consequences, then you intend those consequences in law, and if those consequences which you foresee and which you intend - if they are the methods by which you want to achieve your objects, you must accept responsibi-lity for them. My lords, that is what the authorities that I quoted at the outset said, that you cannot deny it and say that the consequences of those actions if they lead to violence, you did not intend them.

My lords, ordinarily in casesof this nature -Treason - the Courts have accepted as a test even the objective approach; if a person should know, the Court is satisfied that he should have known that those were g&ing to be the consequences, and you can be held res-ponsible for them. But, my lords, in this case it's not even a question of should know; they knew; they preached to their people; they told them that that would probably be the result - but they said "Bo not let that deter you". "Let courage arise with danger, be prepared to make the supreme sacrifice; all through history peo-ple have been prepared to shed blood and make the supreme sacrifice." That was their approach, my lords. They were deliberately provoking violent action, and deliberately involving the masses in what could be a violent conflict with the State. My lords, it's just idle talk.

Then, my lords, there is another aspect of the Programme Action . .

BEKKER J; You are going to deal with the

18700(a) MR. TRENGOVE

probabilities, I suppose, Mr. Trengove? MR. TRENGOVE; Yes, my lord. Another aspect of

the Programme of Action, my lords, is that they realised that for this type of action they had to harness the masses; they had to use masses in order to achieve their object; it wasno good, my lords, for the National Exe-cutive of the African National Congress to have a sympa-thetic stay at home,to strike, to defy those would be mere protests, mere demonstrations; to be effective they had to get the masses into action. And that is why, my lords, this He cture stresses the need for agita-tion; the !bcture says that agitation is required to mobilise the people, not only to win their support but it must be agitation which is designed to lead the masses into action, and then the lecture gives a very good example of the difference between demonstrating and agitat-ing, my lords. The lecture refers to the nationwide agitations against the Hertzog Bill, and the le cture says that produced the greatest agitation in our history, but it achieved no purpose other than educating the people to the character of the bills, because there was no leadership for the people in action. So, my lords, when they talk of mass action, agitations, demonstrations, it wasn't just a protest to impress upon the white electorate their hardships, the agitation - the protests and the demonstrations had to be directed to ]e ading the masses into action. Action against who? Action for what purpose? Against the State, my lords, in order to compel the State either to use force against the masses or to capitulate.

(COURT ADJOURNED)

Collection: 1956 Treason Trial Collection number: AD1812

PUBLISHER: Publisher:- Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand Location:- Johannesburg ©2011

LEGAL NOTICES:

Copyright Notice: All materials on the Historical Papers website are protected by South African copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

Disclaimer and Terms of Use: Provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein, you may download material (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal and/or educational non-commercial use only.

People using these records relating to the archives of Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, are reminded that such records sometimes contain material which is uncorroborated, inaccurate, distorted or untrue. While these digital records are true facsimiles of paper documents and the information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand has not independently verified their content. Consequently, the University is not responsible for any errors or omissions and excludes any and all liability for any errors in or omissions from the information on the website or any related information on third party websites accessible from this website.