9262.

important. BY MH. KBNTRIDGE s

Well, My Lord, that would go to wait, and ( J

of course that would be the case whether he was refreshing memory or whether it was independent recollection. 5

BY MS. JUSTICE RUMIFF : Now what is the difference between acase

like that and a case where he says I scratched through some sentences, I didn't copy them because I could make no head or tail out of this. 10 BY ME. KENTRIDGE s

My Lord, normally when a witness comes... BY MR. JUSTICE RUMIFF :

Isn't what he is really saying now when he refreshes his memory from the report, on the assumption 15 that he does say that, isn't what he says I wrote down a number of things said. I also wrote down things said which, when I looked at what I wrote down appeared unintelligible, I left them out. But what I wrote down and what I thought I could understand, I put that literally 20 down, I copied that. Now if I refresh my memory, I am not going to refresh my memory any further than what I actually heard and what I copied^ and what I understood. I am not tendering the document as evidence, I am refreshing my memory. I concede in the one case that I 25 stopped writing because I thought it was unimportant -it may have been very unimportant, for the Court, the Accused and everybody concerned, it may have been very important, I concede that. I didn't write it down. And in the case where he says I wrote down a lot of 30 nonsense which I couldn't follow and left that out. Now how does that effect either case, the right given to

f 9263.

him by the Court to rely on the notes to refresh his memory only insofar as his notes are concerned, what he wrote down? BY MR. KENTRIDGE :

What I would say to that, My Lord, with 5

respect is that the process of giving evidence is normally a process of memory. A witness comes to Court and gives direct evidence without a piece of paper of what he remem-bers. In some cases where he can't, the Court allows him the advantage of what is called refreshing memory. It may 10 be sometimes a purely nominal process, admittedly, but the theory of it is that he is refreshing his recollection from a note made at the time, a contemporaneous note, My lord... BY MR. JUSTICE RUMIFF : 15

But whqt he in fact does, he is not refreshing his memory - in certain cases, let us put it that way. In this case, obviously in the majority of cases he is in fact not refreshing his memory. He is reading what he wrote down so many years ago and he can't remember a thing 20 about it. So ho is not refreshing his memory, he is tendering original evidence from his documents. BY MR. KENTRIDGE ;

Well, My Lord, that is probably so and there is no doubt that one doesn't have to show that what 25 happens when the witness sees the paper is that it all suddenly comes back to him. It is quite clear, My Lord, that one doesn't have to go as far as that. BY MR. JUSTICE RUMIFF :

It is apure fiction. 30 BY MR. KENTRIDGE S

But My Lord, with submission it is a fiction

r v

9264.

which shouldn't be carried too far. The point is, when he has his notes there and he is recollecting, he may have a sentence with a word in it which he can't quite catch and he crosses it out, perhaps an adverb or an adjective. The Court will only allow a witness to refresh his memory 5 even from an original document on condition that it is available in Court for the Court and the other party to look at. Consequently, My Lord, even-though in the case of a secondary document he is able to say these words I have written down in this document are taken from my 10 original notes, I haven't made them up, the point is firstly that the opportunity of checking it is less, it always is in the case of a copy, but secondly, My Lord, the word which he has left out, the word in the middle, the word after, the word just before, makes it not a true 15 copy, not a true reflection of his recollection. And it is something different from the case of the witness looking at his notes... MY MR. JUSTICE RUMIFF :

Now he is not relying on that. He is not 20 refreshing his memory in regard to that sentence at all. BY MR. KENTRIPGE s

But My Lord, with respect, one can never say that about any of the sentences in what I'll call the secondary report, because right in the middle of the 25 sentence there may have been a word crossed out, the word left out may be the last word of that sentence. In the sort of report which this witness Ngcai has, and which this argument concerns, there is no sentence of which he can say there wasn't a word at the end of it which I left 30 out, because my note was unintelligible or there was a gap. There is no sentence of which he can say, well, this word

9265.

I might originally have written differently and crossed out and altered. There is no sentence like that, My lord, there is no word like that. In the case of his original notes he can say this is what I got down, and we can see there is a gap at the end of the sentence, there is a word 5 crossed out in the middle, there is a new word put in or a letter changed. But here, My Lord, there is no sentence of which the Court can be satisfied that it is an accurate reflection of the original notes in the sense that gaps are noted, crossings out are noted, alterations 10 in spelling are noted, and that sort of thing is noted. My Lord, it is quite.. BY MR. JUSTICE RUMTFF :

Didn't he say that he wrote down literally from his notes what he had in the report, hut what was 15 unintelligible to him he left out and uncompleted sentences he left out. BY MR. KENTRIPGS s

And I gather words, My Lord, so I am instruc-ted - I wasn't here - but I am told lie did say occasional 20 words. BY MR. JUSTICE M N E D Y s

When his notes indicated that a sentence was incomplete or meaningless he left it out. BY MR. JUSTICE BEKKER : 25

As for the rest, it was verbatim. BY MR. KENTRIDrE : ______________ ,

Yes, My Lord. Well, now My Lord, then one has the question, what is the incomplete or meaningless sentence? What is the meaningless part, My Lord? Let 30 us assume - one doesn't know when a man makes a speech, My Lord, when it is copied down, one talks in terms of

9266.

sentences, but if he says if a sentence was incomplete, I left it out, or if there was something unintelligible I left it out, what is unintelligible may have come right at the end of a sentence which he has here. In other words, My Lord, he can't say the man spoke this sentence, it 5 might be this sentence plus something else. 3Y ME. JUSTICE BARKER :

But that may be put to him in his cross-examina-tion. BY MR. KENTRIDGE : 10

Although My Lord, he may have copied it in the sense of writing down every word, what isn't copied in a report like this is the gap, the crossing out and the substitution of a new word. That is the difficulty, My Lord. That is why we are so far away from a carbon copy 15 or an examined copy or a photostatic copy. The Court, My Lord, whatever the witness says about taking down - about not inventing and putting down only what is in his notes, can never be sure that it is an exact copy in the ordinary sense of the word. My Lord, he says he left out an 20

unintelligible passage. Unintelligible to him. He is substituting a discretion. BY MR. JUSTICE RUMIFF :

On that point I can't see the difference between a witness saying I left out that and I didn't 25 write it down. That is all. BY MR. KENTRIDGE s

Well, My Lord, if he ... BY MR. JUSTICE RUMIFF :

On that simple basis, there was a sentence 30 which he says in his evidence I left out because it was unintelligible to me. He is not now relying on that at all,

9267.

Jre is not giving evidence about that. And what is the difference between that position and the witness saying oh yes, I did leave a sentence out. BY MR. KENTRIDGE s

Because of this, My Lord. Because where a 5 witness is refreshing recollection froma document, the Court and the cross-examiner is entitled to every part of that document, whether it is intelligible or not. That is to say, if there is something intelligible there, I can use it, My Lord. If there is nothing written down, then 10 of course no &ne can use it. But the point I make is that if the witness hasn't got an independent recollection, if he hasnto rely on a piece of paper, then we are entitled to everything that was on that piece of paper, and if he has substituted for it another piece of paper, in a way 15

which deprives us of the use of the unintelligible portion or any portion, then I submit, My Lord, that there is no warrant for allowing him to use it, because it is not a copy. BY MR.JUSTICE RUMTFF : 20

That is your argument, there is a benefit which acquires to the party who calls the witness and the witness receives the benefit too, he is entitled to look at the document. Once he looks at the document to refresh his memory, that - another benefit comes, that is the 25 benefit given to the other party to look at the whole docu-ment, everything that is written there. BY MR. KENTRIDG-E s

As Your Lordship pleases. So if the party calling the witness wants to use what I might call the 30 privilege to refreshing memory from a document and he hasn't got the original document, then it must be a copy.

9268.

We must "be no worse off than we would have been had we had the original1* My Lord. And I submit, My Lord, that bearing in mind that this question of refreshing memory of what happened so long ago is in the nature of a privilege, the jarty must apply to Your Lordships for permission to use 5 the document, bearing that in mind, My Lord, I submit that the use of a copy is not something which should easily be extended. It is a privilege which should be strictly observed and which should be allowed only where the Court is satisfied that what is used is a copy in the true sense 10 of the word. BY MB. JUSTICE RUMIFF :

Actually your submission is that it is an extension of the privilege, if he is allowed to rely on a copy which is not a true copy, which brings in its wake 15 a disadvantage to the other side. BY MR. KENTRIDGE s

As Your Lordship pleases. Now My Lord, that is really my general submission which applied, as Your Lordships will observe whether notes are los^ accidentally 20 destroyed or deliberately destroyed. It has nothing to do with the question of deliberate destruction. BY MR. JUSTICE BEKKER ;

Why do you say that? BY MR. KENTRIDGE : 25

Well, My Lord, because it is q question of whether it is a true copy. BY MR. JUSTICE BEKKER ;

Yes, but it is subject to a discretion the Court has. It may be that where - take the first ruling 30 given by My L:>rd the Presiding Judge. That discretion there was exercised against the Crown because the Police

93*9- 9269.

destroyed it. Now if the police lose a document, why shouldn't a different test "be applied? BY ME. KBNTRIDGE :

My Lord, with regard to Your Lordships' former ruling that Your Lordships had a discretion even if the tape was deliberately destroyed, although My Lord I don't know that it was actually stated in Your Lordships' Judgment my recollection is that the real point there was that there were some omissions and the witness couldn't say exactly where they came. BY ME. JUSTICE RUMIFF ;

It was really on the basis that if we had a discretion we would exercise it against the Crown. BY ME. KENTRIDGE :

Z3ut My Lord, here my submission does go further. My submission is that if the original notes are not before the Court and the party calling the witness wants to allow him to use a copy, then the Court on the authorities will only allow it if it is certain that it is a true copy, because as His Lordship the Presiding Judge put it, otherwise they would be asking not for the privi-lege of refreshing memory, but from an extension of that privilege which might be disadvantageous to the other party. And I would submit, My Lord, that quite apart from discretion, the authorities seem to indicate that copies can only be used when they are true copies. BY ME. JUSTICE EUMPFF :

But wouldn't there still be a discretion? Futting it on a very high basis, assume that a Professor in the English language took down a certain speech, and he then said I took down in longhand this speech, and then I found when I re wrote my notes, 1 found a sentence

9270.

here completely meaningless, completely meaningless. It had no verb and it just hung into the air, and it neither fitted in anywhere, and I just left that out. BY MR. KENTRIDG-E J

My Lord, then the objection to it would of course be very technical. But in theory My Lord, it would stand. What is unintelligible to him may have been some

very important political slogan which someone else could explain to the Court. BY MR. JUSTICE RUMIFF ?

No, but I am putting it on the basis that there is a sentence which he says he wrote down, and it had no verfe and a few nouns which I couldn't link up, which was meaningless. And it would have been meaningless to the Court, to anybody. Or let us put it slightly differently. Assume that he had said well, these are my notes, my original notes. I started a sentence, it was meaningless and I just scratched it through. You can't see what I wrote down originally. What would your argu-ment be then? BY MR. KENTRIBGE :

Well, My Lord, one knows exactly where it comes in the speech, one knows that there is a crossing out there, one knows that it comes there. BY MR. JUSTICE RUMIFF ;

And it is crossed out to such an extent that you can't possibly make out what it was. BY MR. KENTRISGE s

Well, My Lord, there it is. One can cross-examine him on why he crossed it out, why he crossed it out so deliberately, whether he had any motive for it, and ....

9W-. 9271.

BY MR. JUSTICE RUMIFF : Apart from motive.

BY MR. KENTRIDGE ; But My Lord, that is also a fact which can

effect the Court, why something is crossed out. 5 BY MR. JUSTICE RUMEFF ;

Isn't that so that the Court may still have a discretion? BY MR. KENTRIDGE :

With respect, no, Mv Lord, "because if he then 10 came along to Court and said this is a copy and it says that there is something which I don't have, something which I wrote down but I crossed it out, the question is where does it come? Where does it occur? How long was the word? How long was the sentence? This is a very technical way 15 of approaching it. But My Lord, basically the trouble would be with this professor of English, that he is sub-stituting his opinion of what is unintelligible for the Court's. It is for the Court to say whether something

on has a meaning or is unintelligible in the last resort. And whether it is Sergeant Gladwell Ngcai or a professor of English, My Lord, basically it is for the Court to decide on the meanings of words and not for a witness. And consequently, My Lord, I would submit that there is no discretion. If there were^a discretion, My Lord, I 25 would argue that this isn't the case of the English professor, this is the case of a witness who, because he couldn't understand words, might have left out some-thing extremely important. After all, My Lord, this is a criminal case, we are dealing ith events which happened 30 in some cases many years ago, and I submit that the Court should not allow this legal fiction of refreshing of memory

9272.

to be extended too far. And consequently, My Lord, my argument would apply whether notes are lost, accidentally destroyed or deliberately destroyed. However, My Lord, I submit in addition that if Your Lordships are against me either on the basis - on any basis, including the basis 5 that there may be a discretion, I would ask Your Lordships to bear in mind what Your Lordships had to say at the last argument on the question of deliberate destruction. My Lord, as far as this type of document is concerned, although the document itself isn't to be put in, the factors which 10 give rise to the rules about loss and destruction, ought to apply equally here, particularly in a case where the refreshing of memory isn't a genuine refreshing of memory. Where really the witness has nothing but the document to guide him, and no independent recollection. My Lord, in 15 the case of Burton and Hummer to which I referred, that is 111 English Reports, page 132, which was a case of notes used for refreshing memory, Mr. Justice Patterson at page 133 stated that the best evidence mile ought to be applicable whether the paper be produced as evidence in 20 itself or used merely to refresh a merrory, And I submit My Lord, that the reasons for that are clear. The sort of advantage which the Court feels that it derives and the party derives from an insistence on the best evidence rule is one which applies equally to documents used to 25

refresh memory. The advantages of using the original document are nanifest. Consequently someone who wants to use something else must satisfy the Court that he is entitled to do so just as though he wanted to put the document in in evidence. My Lord, as I indicated 30 earlier, I must concede that my learned friend is correct that the Court has a discretion. It would appear, My Lord,

9273.

that the position is that a Court looks with suspicion on the case where a document is deliberately destroyed. The Courts seem to take the attitude that people who destroy documents have only themselves to thank if they can't have the best evidence before the Court, and the Court I 5 submit in exercising its discretion in a case of deliberate destruction would require to be absolutely certain that the use of the secondary copy would not prejudice the other party in any other way. My Lord, this of course is sub-ject to my argument on true copies. The point is that 10 even if there is a copy, a true copy, the Court ought to be satisfied that it ought to exercise its discretion and the Court will bear in mind that - as it did on the previous occasion, that this is a criminal case, it concerns matters which happened a long time ago, and it 15 concerned a document which whatever the real feeling of the witness about the document, was a document which was intended to be used in Court, in the sense that it had relation to possible criminal proceedings. Consequently, My Lord, I would submit that even if there were a dis- 20 cretion, Your Lordships shouldn't exercise it in favour of the Crown in this case. BY MR. JUSTICE BEKKER ;

I want to go back a bit. You made the sub-mission, we must be no worse off than if we had had the 25 original before us. Bearing in mind the concessions made by this witness, or what he stated in his evidence in chief, I didn't take down the whole speech, thereare gaps, here are other examples of my notes. What dis-advantage do you suggest you are in insofar as this 30 particular document is concerned? BY MR. KENTRIDGE :

My Lord, the unintelligible sentence, whatever

- - .-if ttttfaf*"'''

9274

it was, might have come just before or just after a sen-tence which is in his report... BY MR. JUSTICE BEKKER :

I understand your general submission. But are there any particular disadvantages, apart from the 5 general submission you made? BY MR. KENTRIDGS ;

My Lord, we can't point to any particular one, but the position is that although he says there were unintelligible sentences which I left out, we might have 10 been able to show that in front of or after or on both sides of some sentence which is in his report, there were words unintelligible to him which we can show positively alter the meaning of what he has down. BY MR. JUSTICE BEKKER : 15

Well, you can still cross-examine him, and say this is what my client will say. BY MR. KENTRILGE !

My Lord, he has no recollection of whether they did or not.. He has got no longer any independent SO recollection. BY MR. JUSTICE BEKKER :

If he says he didn't say it, then I can see, you may have gained something out of this document which you can't gain now. But if he says well, I simply can't 25 remember, he may have said,it, I am not denying it. BY MR. EENTRIDGE :

Well, My Lord, firstly with submission, if we have the note and he says yes, on the basis of my original note I see that your client did say that, that 30 is something more positive than the case in which he says I can't deny it, it may have been said. But Your

9275,

Lordship will remember that we are dealing with speeches made many years ago, some by accused and some by other persons, and the difficulties of memory, My Lord, apply as much to the people who made speeches as to others. My Lord, this sort of document, the original notes as 5 used by us assist not only the witness, but it assists our clients or other witnesses whom we may have in finding out what they actually said. My Lord, we are dealing, as Your Lordships recall, we have been dealing with speeches which were made six or even seven years ago, sometimes, some by 10 accused and some by other persons. It may be that one has a sentence in his report, and the person... BY MR. JUSTICE BEKKER :

You mean that that unintelligible bit may serve to refresh your client's memory? 15 BY MR. KENTRIDGE s

Exactly, My Lord. And My Lord, that is my submission. On the facts here, My Lord, it does seem that in the first place the witness didn't have any indepen-dent recollection at the time ho made his report, that is 20 to say he couldn't have made it without his notes, he didn't remember what people had said, And My Lord, it seems clear that what he made was not a true copy in the sense in which I have submitted is the only sense allowed by ihe authoritie s. For those reasons, My Lord, I submit 25 that he should not be allowed to look at his report in order to refresh his memory. BY MR. HOEXTER :

May it please Your Lordships. My Lord, in the respectful submission of th. Crown, the Court is here 30 confronted by a problem of cogency of evidence only, and not admissibility. My Lord, a convenient starting place in

, 9276

reply is the use of the words by my learned friend - the use of the phrase "independent recollection". Now My Lords, that is a wellknown phrase, when we are dealing with the problem of the witness standing in the witness box with notes before him, and the preparatory question of the use 5

of the notes. My Lords, I shall endeavour to persuade Your Lordships that when deciding whether or not a copy in th case of a lost or destroyed document, whether the copy assumes the status of a quasi original, then the Defence postulated a test which is too high, too stringent. My 10

Lord, when the witness Ngcai was in the witness box on Friday, two answers were elicited from him, and the question before the Court is which of those two answers should determine the matter. The first answer was elicited by my 1 earned friend Mr. Berrange, Your Lordships willrecollect 15 that he put it to the witness succintly in the following form. He said s "Look here, Ngcai, isn't the position this, that having attended this two or three houi meeting, on the next day in the absence of your original notes, you would not have been able to make the. report". That was 20 candidly conceded by the witness. Then in re-examihation the question was put by my learned leader, "Nevermind

what you could or could have done with the notes, what was the position on the next day when you re-read those notes in the course of preparing the report". And the 25 tenor of the question to the witness was whether or not he was able in re-reading those notes on the next day to remember that the things therein reported had been said. And the witness indicated clearly that he was able on the next day to remember what was said. Now My Lord... 30 BY MR. JUSTICE RUMIFF ;

That doesn't help us at all, does it? Not on

-9277. c

the argument of the Defence. When he wrote down the report from the notes on the next day, he remembered that what he wrote down was said. Right. That isn't the difficulty here. It isn't suggested that he couldn't possibly recollect, because he had the notes. In fact 5

he said that he copied the notes. BY MR. HOEXTJR :

With respect, I may be mistaken, but I understood quite clearly that that was a point of attack. BY MR. JUSTICE RUMIFF : 10

Not as I see it. He said in his evidence he copfied the notes, but he left out, and that is the whole basis of the Defence attack. BY MR. HOEXT-R :

Well, My Lord, if my learned friend indicates - 15 I recorded that portion of his argument - that that is not a poiht of attack, I shall abandon that part of the argument. BY MR. JUSTICE KENNEDY 5

I understood Mr. Kentridge to make that as 20 one of his points, that the report was made when the matters were not fresh in his memory. BY MR. KENTRIDGE ;

My Lord, my point was that he didn't have the sort of independent recollection which would have 25 made the second document so to speak a duplicate original which could be looked at completely independently of the first. BY MR. HOEXTjjR :

And my argument, My Lord, is that on what 30 the witness said he did have that recollection. The fact, as he conceded, ho omitted incomplete sentences or

9278.

that he omitted matter which to him appeared unintelligible, doesn't alter the fact that the witness on his own testi-mony was in a position to produce a quasi original. And the Crown argument with respect, My Lords, is that that being so, in the light of his confession, although Your 5 Lordships may in the final analysis see fit to whittle down the cogency of the evidence, its value, its quality, the initial, the primary question of admissibility must be answered in favour of the Crown. Now My Lord, my learned friend urged upon Your Lordships that in no case 10 where an original was available has a Court ever permitted reference to the copy. My Lords, if that argument is correct, it would go some way to establishing, to persuading your Lordships the Court is here confronted with a problem of admissibility, and not cogency. I urge with respect 15

My Lord, that there is clear authority in this country and in England that despite the presence of the existence of the original or more generally put, despite the fact that the/whereabouts of the original has not been canvassed or satisfactorily explained at all, at the trial, despite 20 those factors, Courts have admitted reference to a copy only. Now the South African cases, My Lord... BY ME. JUSTICE RUMFFF :

s that to refresh memory? BY MR. HOEXTER : 25

To refresh memory. My Lord, the South African cases - there is fiist the Eastern Districts case to v/hich my learned friend referred, and thjre His Lord-ship Mr. Justice Bekker pertinently put it to my learned friend, whether or not it was clear on the facts of that 30 case that the rough notes, the daily rough notes had been used. That is palpably clear from the decision, My Lord.

9279.

This is the case of Vumendlini against Boardman, reported at page 165, My Lord. The headnote of that case is an accuBte reflection of the report. It says % "In an action for the price of goods sold a trader who conducted the transaction is entitled to refresh his memory froma daybook written up daily from a rough book which need not be produced". And in the course of the Judgment at page 166 we find the following s "In the course of his evidence the respondent dealt with each item of his account and then made the following statement 'All these items were entered in my daybook on the same day by me.' The day book referred to was produced by the respondent and he refreshed his memory by reading the entries therein. It is true that he did not produce the rough day book which he kept, but in view of the fact that the entries in the day book produced were written up from a rough day book every day, there is no force in the suggestion that the respondent should have also produced the rough day book." BY MR. JUSTICE BEKKER s

Well, you see, isn't that slightly different on the facts. Here we are dealing with speeches, where he left out portions unintelligible and others not. Is there not merit in the Defence complaint that they are now worse off than they would have been had they the original notes. BY MR. HOEXTJR s

There is every merit in that submission, My Lord. BY MR. JUSTICE BEKKER ;

Does that apply to that? BY MR. HOEXTER s

N0, My Lord, but the question is still, does the argument relate to initial admissibility or cogency.

9280.

And with submission the answer is, it relates to cogency. My Lord, in the other case... BY ME. JUSTICE RUMIFF :

Yes, well, broadly speaking perhaps yes. I mean even Mr. ^entridge conceded that one may have a very 5

technical.case, where the admissibility may not perhaps bo in question. BY ME. H0EXT4R :

My Lord, it is important to realise that it is a matter of cogency and not admissibility, and that 10 these matters should be determined ad hoc, because this is not the only case in which the Crown is confronted with this policy, and justice requires that if it is a matter of admissibility, it should be strictly - or rather if it is a matter of cogency only that the Crown's posi- 15 tion should not be prejudiced as well. And where, My Lord, in any given case it may be open to Your Lordships, having heard the testimony of the witness, having heard a long series of admissions as to omission, whereas it may be proper for Your Lordships to decide that he may refresh 20 his memory, but having heard his Refreshed memory we are not impressed and we are discarding his testimony in toto, that is one thing, My Lord. But the Crown hero is anxious to avoid a decision...

BY MB. JUSTICE RUMIFF s 25 But now hasn't Mr. Kentridge said that if

the original document or notes are not procurable then a copy may be used? Then his submission is that the copy must be a true copy. BY MR. HOEXTER ; 30

Yes, My Lord, but his corrolary was that in no case where the original still exists is it permissible

9281.

to use a copy. And I was merely answering that point. That was his argument. BY MR. JUSTICE RUMIFF :

We are not dealing with that here. The evi-dence is that the note was destroyed. BY MR. HOEXTJR :

That is so, My Lord, "but it is an important logical corollary My Lord, because with respect if that is an unconditional rule, then it may tend to suggest that the question is one of initial admissibility rather than cogency.

BY MR. JUSTICE BEKKER : This witness said, I think, it is beyond him

to state whether this document, Exhibit 290 - he can't say whether in preparing that report he left out unintel-ligible worda or sentences, whether incomplete or for any other re£,son. Does that effect the argument at all? BY MR. HOEXTilR :

With respect, My Lord, in principle there is no distinction between that case and the case where he had his original notes and it is immediate]y elicited from him that although he wrote down as much as he could, it is an imperfect record. Certain things said in a tongue in which - with which he is not conversant were unintel-ligible to him, although they may have been completely intelligible to the Court, or where he confesses that many of the sentences are incomplete. In principle, there is no difference, and although my learned friend.; is entirely correct in urging My Lords that really the possibility of error may be greater when the process is advanced a further step, that relates solely and exclusively to cogency. My Lord, it is important for the

9282

Crown case, because we nay have a candid witness and a truthful witness who says - in one set of circumstances, who says that the report is completely the same, save and except that I did not reproduce a single incomplete sen-tence or I omitted to add at the end of my report the 5

clarion call Afrika Mayibuye. You may get another witness who says well, I must confess that I used a very free hand in drafting this report, and he may list ten or fifteen defects from which the report suffers. Now those two

are cases/.very different. Your Lordships with respect 10 will bear in mind as well the interest to the Crown in this matter and it is of cardinal importance in the sub-mission of the Crown, with respect, My Lords, that the matter should be adjudged on its true footing one of cogency and cogency alone. Now My Lords, it is of interest 15 too to see that in the English case to which my learned friend has referred, Burten against Hummer, that too was a case of sale and it is clear from that case that there was the absence of the - the absence of the waste book was not accounted for at all. Again a case where 20 despite conceivably the existence of the original, the Court was prepared to elevate the status of the copy to a quasi original without concerning itself further about the existence of the original. The other case, Home and McKenzie, Your Lordships will recollect that 25 that was the case where the surveyor's report was sub-stantially the same as the note - not identical. Again, My Lord, in that case the whereabouts or the existence of the original notes do not appear to have received any treatment or any enquiry at the trial Court. I have 30 quoted Your Lordships the E.D.L. case. The other South African decision, the Natal case, My Lord, is by implication

9283.

authority for the view that if there is proof "before the trial Court of correspondence between the copy and the original, the existence of the original is irrelevant. That appears, My Lord, from the judgment of the Chief Justice, His Lordship Mr. Justice Connor, page 11 of the 5 report. I may just read the headnote s "Where a witness assisted his memory by reading from a copy of a report embodying certain particulars noted at the time, in a book kept for the purpose, held the original book should be produced. Where the press copy of a paper is ten- 10 dered in evidence, it cannot be admitted unless proved to be an exact copy of the- original." And Connor C.J. says, "But does the witness know that the press copy is a copy of the original? If not I think we must have it proved by the person who made the copy. There is no legal evi- 15 dence for the jury as to the time passing from one . . . . to another, as the witness is not here (?) the original press book entries and is not able to speak from memory1.' By implication, had there been evidence of the trustwor-thiness of the copy, that would havo sufficed. My Lords, 20 generally on the problem as to the mental state of the man when he makes the report from the original, a case referred to by Professor Thayer in his Cases on Evidence is useful. My Lord, at page 1170, toyer, Cases on Evidence, he quotes the case of Burrough against Martin, 25 2 Campbell's Reports, 1809, and Professor Thayer's summary of the case is as follows t "In an action on a chartered party a witness is called to give an account of the voyage and the logbook was laid before him for the purpose of refreshing his memory. Being asked 30

whether he had written it himself, he said that he had not, but that from time to time he examined the entries in

9284.

it while the events recorded were fresh in his recollection." That seems to be the phrase rather than "independent recollection", My Lord, -'fend that he always found the entries accurate. The Attorney-General contended that the witness could make no use of the logbook during his 5 examination, notwithstanding his former inspection of it, and that the only case where a witness could refer to a written paper 1 f o r the purpose of giving evidence is where he had actually written it himself and had thus the surest means of knowing the truth of the contents. 10 Lord Elnborough ; If the witness looked at the logbook from time to time while the occurences mentioned in it were recent and fresh in his recollection, it is as good as if he had written the whole with his own hand. This conation gave him an ample opportunity to ascertain the 15 correctness of the entries and he may therefore refer to these on the same principle that witnesses are allowed to refresh their memory by reading letters and other documents which they themselves have written". My Lord, there is a further approach that I would stress be partly adumbrated 20 and that is the status of the copy. Your Lordship will recollect that on Friday when this matter arose I quoted from the Eighth Edition of Ihipson, page 463, where he says under the heading "Originals and Copies", he says : "Where the copy was made or verified by the witness while 25 the facts were fresh in his recollection, it will be admissible on the footing of a duplicate or quasi original." And then, My Lords, the case of Burton and Hummer again stresses that the circumstances of the creation of the second document may be such as to render 30 irrelevant from the point of view of the proponentnthe existence or n:>n-cxistence of the original. My Lord, I quote from that case...

9285.

BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF s That is not the case here, is it?

BY MR. HOEXTER s Well, with respect, My Lord, substantially it

is. 5 BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF :

When he says that he could not have made the report on Monday without the notes, it is true that he had the notes on Monday. But what he made was not a true copy of the notes, and when he said that what he put in 10 the report - lot us assume he said that - what he said in his report was said, then that is not in dispute, at the moment. BY MR. HOEXTER ;

My Lord, there are two separate and distinct 15 enquiries, with respect. The first is what is to be de-cicive in deciding at all whether he can use the report. Now, there the suggestion thrown out by the Defence was that since the witness had stated that on the following day he could not have compiled the report without the 20

notes, that was decicive befause he didn't have an indepen-dent recollection. The Crown's submission there, with respect, is the following, that allowing for the fact -it is obvious that this man is unable to recapitulate everything that was said without the notes, that is 25 obvious - but the test is, on rereading the notes the next day, was he able, did he know, yes or no, that this is what was said last night and what I recorded last night. BY MR. JUSTICE RUMIFF ; 30

This what I put down in the notes? BY MR. HOEXTER :

Well, if Your Lordship would accept that

9286.

argument, that part of the Defence attack falls away. Then there is the further question, is it a true copy, and if it isn't, do we know in what respect it falls down. Now here, My Lord, the witness has detailed precisely the respects... 5 BY ME. JUSTICE RUMIFF s

The witness didn't say that he purported in any way to write up a new set of notes. He copied the note. His evidence is to the effect that what I did was verbally to incorporate my notes into the report. So he 10 made no attempt to write out fresh notes. He merely re-wrote what he had on the notes into the report. BY ME. HOEXTER ;

He tried to make a copy, broadly put. And the only question before Your Lordships is whether Your Lord- 15 ships are able to decide on his testimony whether substan-tially the copy is in accord with the original note. The Crown's submission is that Your Lordships are in such a position. This witness can be cross-examined at great length on the defects to which he himself has deposed. 20

That being so, My Lords, it is not a matter of initial admissibility, but of cogency. And My Lord, I want - I will not repeat my argument, but this is not of academic interest for the Crown merely, and the Crown is anxious that there should be a decision now which does not 25 regulate the future donduct of the case by the Crown, because I have mentioned hypothetical cases to Your Lord-ships. There may be witnesses who are able to satisfy Your Lordships that the correspondence is exact or so close as to be unimportant, and from that point of view 30 it is essential, My Lords, with respect, that the matter if it can so properly be dealt with, be dealt with on the basis of cogency and not admissibility.

9287.

My Lord, may I mention two or three hypothetical examples in support of my respectful submission that Your Lord-ships are here dealing with a matter of cogency and not of admissibility. Let us take first, My Lord, the case of a Eieeting and after the meeting it is an important fact in issue whether or not at the meeting the Horstwessel Song or The Red Flag was sung in extensio, word for word, "'"his meeting is attended by a police officer. He takes brief notes at the meeting. When he sits down to write a report, the first paragraph says 'Red Flag was sung completely o£ Horstwessel Lied was sung completely' and then in extenso there is a bit that was said in Zulu or French or some other language about which the witness is not happy. The police witness then goes home and he writes a report in which he sets out word for word the words of the song, and then completes word for word what was said in the foreign language. When he gets into the witness box here, his original notes have been destroyed and he has his report. Now My Lord, undoubtedly the Defence is at a disadvantage. The reason why the Defence is at a disadvantage is because the witness may be a com-plete liar who has swotted up the words of The Red Flag or the Horstwessel Song, after the meeting and although he now says it is true that in my original notes I had this very terse statement, but thereafter the song was sung, I knew the song well at the time, and therefore I didn't adjuge it necessary to write it out in my original notes. The Defence is at a disadvantage because he may be lying. But the fact that he may be lying, My Lord, is a fact which goes to the co gency of his evidence. BY MR. JUSTICE KENNEDY %

But is that an answer, Mr. Hoexter? Because

9288.

at least presumably he had gone through the form of saying I wrote this out, My report, when the facts were fresh in my recollection, and having said that if it is ruled admissible, the question remains to be broken down on his memory. At least he has gone through the fonn of 5

having said I took these events - rewrote these events when my mind was fresh as to the occurence. Now, has the witness said that in this case? BY MR. HOEXTER s

My Lord, I used this illustration merely to 10 show that in this case, in this hypothetical case, the witness cannot go through the form of saying my report is an exact copy of my original notes. BY MR. JUSTICE KENNEDY i

No, No. That is on the first leg, a true 15

copy. This falls in, I presume within Vumindhlini's case, where he makes a full report from rough notes. BY MR. HOEXTER ;

Well, My Lord, here the witness has said on

rereading my notes I knew at that time that they were correct and I tell now the Court to what extent the report a copy, and I detail the respects in which it is not a copy. BY MR. JUSTICE KENNEDY :

What is your contention about the word "copy"? 25 BY MR. HOEXTER !

My Lord, further to the question which Your Lordship puts mo, may I take this hypothetical case. A police witness goes to a meeting, and makes rough notes. After the meeting he incorporates the rough notes 30 in a report. A criminal case is started, the speakers at the meeting are involved. It appears at the criminal

9289.

trial that three speakers spoke at the meeting, accused no. 10, No. 20 and an unknown person. The witness takes the witness stand and he saysi I destroyed my original notes. The Prosecutor says to him, in what respects if any do your original notes differ from the report now 5 before you. The witness says, as far as accused no. 10 is concerned, the report corresponds word for word with what appeared in my original notes. With reference to accused no. 20 the report corresponds word for word with what he said and what appeared in my notes. With regard 10 to the third party, the punctuation is bad, it isn't exactly the same, and there are one or two unintelligible words that I have omitted. It appears then that the Crown is interested only in what the first two witnesses said. The Crown does not propose even asking the witness to 15 refresh his memory from whatbwas said at the meeting by the unknown speaker. Now there, My Lords, we have a clear case where on the witness' own admission the report before him is not a complete report. BY ME. JUSTICE BEKKER : 20

Isn't that example rather different in this sense, on the present case the Crown relies on everything presumably, in that document. And the witness is not able to say everything in this document is verbatim. BY MR. HOEXTER : 25

That is so, My Lord. I choose - my example is different, but it merely goes to the end of establishing that the problem is one of cogency and not admissibility. Your Lordships' question to me merely underlined the fact that each casv3 must be dealt with strictly on its own 30 merits. My Lords, further to the argument as developed by my learned friend, and it is a valid one, that on the

9290.

facts of the present case the Defence nay not be in quite as strong a position as they would have been had the original notes not been destroyed. The following hypothe-tical case suggests itself. Suppose the police witness goes to the meeting, he is a man of a good memory. At 5 the meeting he sits down comfortably and there is no objective fact which prevents him from taking notes at the meeting. But he feels disinclined to do so. H© waits until the next clay, and using his retentive memory, he writes down as much as he is able to remember of what 10 every speaker said. Now there, My lords, the Defence is similarly at a disadvantage. BY MR. JUSTICE KENNEDY ;

Yes, but that is permissible, is it not? Because his recollection is clear. 15 BY MR. HOEETER ;

Yes, My Lord, in the present case, on his testimony his recollection is clear as well. At the time the evidence is, that the meeting was in the evening, he said down to make his report the next day. My Lord, I 20 have alr^ dy made the point, the respectful submission is not - the test is not could he have made the report at all without recourse to the notes. The question is, and this goes to the crux of the matter, upon rereading his notes in the process of incorporating them into his 25 report, did he then remember that what he was transcribing had been said at the meeting. If he does so remember, then what he writes is a genuine embodiment of his recollection, and the fact that the recollection may be - the transcription of the recollection may be defective 30 in ways conceded by the witness, may render it in some cases somewhat suspect, in other cases highly dangerous,

9291.

and in other cases less dangerous and even safe. But those, My Lords, are natters effecting the credibility of the witness, it depends on how he is cross-examined, what he says in cross-exanination. But all - in the present matter we have reached the stage no further than 5 this where the witness says here is a genuine embodiment of my past recollection. It is based on original notes, and it differs from the original notes in the following respects which I now catalogue. Having done that, My Lords, the foundation is laid. It may appear from subse- 10 quent cross-examination that is the - that the witness is untrustworthy or that on his own showing it would be dangerous to act on what he says, but those are matters effecting cogency. My Lord, if it is permissible, and as Your Lordships have pointed out, it is clearly permis- 15 sible on my last hypothetical instance for the man to do nothing at the meeting, and theh on the following day when there is a fresh recollection, but palpably a recollection that cannot recover as much as there would have been had be been taking notes the whole timev then there is no 20

doubt that the Defence is not in the same strong position it would have been in had the man taken notes at the meeting. But My Lords, it would be alarming to suggest that because of that disadvantage the Crown is precluded from having that witness refresh his memory. With 25 respect, My Lord, it is unthinkable. So My Lords, I have nothing further to add. On the merits of the parti-cular application the Crown urges with respect that the foundation has been laid, and that the witness should be entitled to proceed and refresh his memory. What is 30 used afterwards and how much is used will depend on a great many factors. It may be a case where what he says about every speaker is suspect, it may be a case where the

s^tuJMm. '1

9292.

Crown does not see fit to lead evidence about the speech of every speaker. It nay be a case where from the parti-cular circumstances which appear in cross-examination, Your Lordships decide it is safe to act upon portions of his testimony in respect of which his memory has been 5

revived through the report, but not in respect of other portions. All these matters are matters effecting cogency, My Lord, and should Your Lordships in the final result accept or reject all or some of this man's evidence, the Crown's main submission is that in matters like these 10 once the foundation has been laid, the testimony must he led and the matters must be adjudicated upon on . the basis of cogency of evidence merely. BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF :

We want to consider this matter, and we would 15 like to have the evidence of the witness that he gave on Friday before us. BY MR. KENTRIDGE :

My Lord, I wonder if Your Lordships would allow me to give another reference. That is to Hallsbury, 20 Third Edition, Volume 15, paragraph 798, page 442. That says, My Lord, inter alia, that if the original can't be produced it is necessary that the witness should be able to swear positively to the accuracy of the copy. BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPPF ; 25

Mr. van Niekerk, how manv me ̂ tings is this witness going to deal with that are covered by this ruling? BY ME. VAN NIEKERK s

Three very short meetings, My Lord. BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF ; 30

We think it advisable for the Defence to cross-examine oh what he has given so far, and leave those three meetings aside.

9293.

GLADWELL NGCAI, duly sworn; CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. 3ERRANGE ?

I want to refer you first of all to some meetings in regard to which you gave evidence last week, and in doing so I will repeat some of the things that you read out for the purpose of putting a question to you later on. Now I want to refer you to the meeting held on 5 the 5th February, 1956, which is reported in G. 211. You remember at this meeting that you quoted Henry Tshabalala as having said amongst other things, and towards the end of his speech "You know my people that when you want to achieve your freedom there must be a stream of tears and 10 there must be a flow of blood. In this couhtry there will never be peace since there is segregation on the basis of colour"? Yes, I remember.

And you remember that that was at the end of the speech in which he endeavour ;d to outline the hardships 15 which allegedly the non-European people were suffering from? Yes, My lord.

And then I would refer you to Exhibit G. 49 which relates to a meeting held on the 31st October, 1954, in which the chairman, Simon Tyiki is on page 1 recorded 20 as having said the following, after having first referred to the police who were taking notes, he then goes on to say i "We want to teach you Africans not to greet anybody who does not belong to this organisation. This organisa-tion is a non-violent organisation. Today Sophiatown 25 is being taken from their owner by force because they have guns. The Dutch only want to shoot the Africans. Today our people are being shot and when the Congress is asking they are named. Today they say "As die kaffers nie Meadowlands toe gaan nie, ons sal hulle doodskiet"."

9294.

do you remember that? Yes. And again to another meeting held on the 18th

November, 1956, reported in G. 263, you have a fairly lengthy speech by Matlou who spoke in Zulu and it was interpreted by Tshabalala, in which he says amongst other 5

know things s "We do not/which war they are going to fight I want to remind you this that I have told you in this platform about four months back that the Government is determined to arrest 200 leaders of the A.N.C." He then goes on to say "Friends, when yourleaders have been arrested I want 10 you to do something. I do not care what you will do, but please do it. You must be prepared to shed your blood for freedom. If you are not prepared to shed your blood you must know that no fre dom when you want to buy free-dom for your children you must shed blood. The African 15 people will never see freedom unless you are prepared to shed blood. Once .." - and then he goes on further a^ain to repeat this theme, and he says the same thing. "Go and organise the African people and when you are in numbers then you must be prepared to shed your blood. I 20 want to tell you that you will never get freedom in this country unless you are prepared to shed blood." And lastly I want to refer you to the meeting held on the

April ? 22nd May, 1956 which is reported in G. 234, and in that meeting there are a number of references to the fact 25 that the police have shot Africans. I'll start with the opening by the chairman : "Africans, we are meeting here to preach the evangelism of the A.N.C. our policy is non-violence. Our policy is that the police will shed blood. They attack a man from the beerhall, even 30 in the Cape we see the government shooting people from the churches and people in front of the police station.

9295.

When we are still watching that we find the police shooting people at Germiston, and we also see the machine guns. At Western Areas Beerhall we see the government shooting the Africans day and night. Africans are shot at Newclare here and since he is a black man they will say that he 5

was •'.drunk." And then the chairman again returns to this theme, after Pish Keitsing has spoken and he says this : "They go about, carrying these sten guns because they want to shoot the Africans. We see these people that they are blood thirsty and they want to provoke trouble. If we 10 look at the Bible it says thou shall not kill, but if we look at the whitemen we find them shooting a black man. We see these people shooting them at the beerhalls and we see the people shot at the hostels." The last two sentences, My Lord, were not read in by the Crown at the 15 time the earlier portion of the speech was read. And then later on in his speech, and this also My Lords, was not read in by the Crown, he says ; "Here in the A.N.C. we say a round table is better than a gun, but they say a gun is better than a round table." And then the next speaker 20 Mmusi in the fourth line speaks about "The most - the notorious Gestapo have shot the African people" And then at the same meeting Malupe the fifth speaker starts off by saying "My chairman, fellow soldiers, we are meeting this morning when many people have lost their lives". 25

And that portion was read in by the Crown, up to the sentence in which the speaker allegedly said "Look at Germiston, they people said we cannot eat this food and they were shot for that." And then the following sentences were not read in by the Crown, My Lord 3 "I 30 say unto them that if they want to fight they should go to the Middle East or to Jamaica. We do not want Kenya

9296. (G. NGCAI)

here. We do not want Mau Mau here. The Nats, are deceived "by hatredism because they have been told that

their fathers have been killed by Dingaan and Moshesh. We were not there." That is correct? And the same speaker continues this theme and says "You must be awake, 5 if they shoot you in the beerhalls you should leave their beerhalls. Yes, he is fighting why does he not consult you before he gives your wife a pass. He knows that you will do nothing, he will shoot you." And the an unknown speaker, that is number 7, the seventh speaker, starts 10 off his speech by saying "Fellow comrades, I wonder why at this moment there is a commotion, why the sons of van Riebeeck are blood thirstyl I will quote to you historic events.." and then he deals with a bit of history, and at the end of that he says "Today they tell us of Western 15

civilization. What is it? It is the guns and shooting. Today we are determined that we the youth shall rally the A.N.C. and tell them that they should legve the guns." That portion was not read in in this meeting, My Lords. And then Sekopane, the next speaker, at the beginning of 20 his speech says this "The Government have built the beer-halls for the Africans and he shoots them and he has built the hostels and even therehe is killing then." And he winds up with - the meeting winds up with Kereling, who makes a speech, qnd he contrasts the govern- 25 ment under the late General Smuts with the present government and he goes on to say this : "They were lucky because when they came here they had transport, but now they shall have no transport. Let us be united and fight for our land. Let us demand it without any bloodshed. 30 Let us talk to them." And then he goes on to deal with the question of the bee£hall, Bantu Education and makes

9297. (G. NGCAI)

an appeal to what he calls "his brothers and disters" join the Congress". Now Sergeant you have heard these

constant references by numbers of the speakers to the fact that they say that the police have been shooting them at various parts of the country, and that their policy is 5 one of non-violence, and I want to put it to you that speakers at many meetings which you have attended appeared to believe, rightly or wrongly, I am not interested in that, rightly or wrongly they appeared to believe that in the past -innocent Africans had been 10 attacked and shot by the police in various parts of the country. Is that not so? Yes, from what they say, it appears so.

And they have said on many occasions at these meetings tha-; although their struggle is on non-violent 15 lines, they nevertheless expect violence to be used against them? Yes.

Now I would like to refer you to the meeting of the 5th September, 1954 which is reported in G. 45 -No, I beg your Lordships' pardon, I was proposing to 20 deal with this meeting, but I find I really have nothing to urge in regard to it. I will deal, however with Exhibit G. 46, that is the meeting of the 12th September, 1954. In this meeting you read out the chairman's opening remarks, concluding with his state- 25 ment that Lu L'huli -vants 1,500 volunteers. And then you recorded the fact that Malupe was thenext speaker, and he said that "we are meetinghere when all people are in danger" and he said the very people who are oppressing them are the church going people, and Mr. Swarts is try-ing to crush the Congress, he has banned all the leaders. But there you stopped. And ho went on to say the following s

9298.

"Where is our future prime minister Chief Luthuli and our Jesus Christ? He says that this land is big, black man and Europeans can stay in this country". Correct?

Yes, My Lord. And that sentence was omitted by you when you 5

w^re led in chief, and then you went on to say "But in Africa we say there is too much place to live for those who want to live and you dealt with the rest of his speech, correct? Yes, My Lord.

Could I refer you to tjie chairman's remarks 10 after Malupe had spoken. According to my transcript you have written the following : "Malan has crossed the line where he is supposed not to have passed. Mr. Carr has spoken peaceful words about how the Natives are arrested." Who is this Mr. Carr that you are referring to? He 15 doesn't appear to be a speaker at this meeting at all from your notes? The Manager of the non-European Affairs Department. The corrected copy says "painful words", not "peaceful words". It is "painful words".

And then you have Tunzi speaking, and a portion 20 of his speech'was read out by you. Thereafter the chair-man had something to say and who spoke after the chairman?

A. Chamile. He then refers to the pay that is received on

the mines, and he goes on to say the following : "I have 25 word with those Dutchmen who call themselves Boers or Afrikaners. They are Africans. They are our own brothers and we must forgive them." Is that correct? Correct.

And then Robert Resha speaks and he says 30 "The African National Congress stands in four corners for freedom whether he is an Indian or a white person".

9299. (G. NGCAI)

Is that correct? Correct, My Lord. •*nd he repeats that later on by saying "This

Congress is the only organisation which has Indians, Europeans and Natives". I want to refer you to the meeting of the 3rd October, 1954, reported in G. 47. At this 5 meeting you read the chairman's introductory remarks. You read the first six sentences of Nthithe's speech who followed the chairman and then a couple of sentences were omitted and then you ead the next four sentences in which he said "In the first place when weare removed to 10 Meadcwlands the Government will say the Zulu this side, Xosa this side, And Sutos this side. So that when the Basutos clash with the Zulu every location must bo in a clash." And as far as I can recollectnthat is all that you read out according to my note of this meeting. i(|ow 15 this meeting lasted - it started at 10.45 a.m., did it not? You have no note as to its time of ending? No, My Lord.

But it was a lengthy meeting, quite obviously? Yes. 20

And I think you will agree with me that although other matters were discussed, such as Meadow-1 lands, Bantu Education, this meeting was primarily called for the purpose of discussing boycotts? Correct.

Particularly the boycott of the Public 25 Utilities Corporation, because of their endeavour to raise bus fares, and also the question of boycotting certain makes of cigarettes? Correct.

And that was really the whole reason for the meeting and what was said there. I could refer you to 30 the resolution, which is at the end which says that it "strongly condemns the transport of the P.U.T.C. and

9300. (G. NGCAI)

especially "between Sophiatown and the City. It is disgusting to see the Africans standing in queues. We demand that the I.U.T.C. should provide adequate transport, failing v/hich we will call on our people to boycott themi. And the next resolution is "We call upon all the people of 5 Sophiatown to join hands with the workers of U.T1C. in Durban to boycott &.11 cigarettes and tobaccos made by this company. This meeting further calls to all shop-keepers in Sophiatown to co-operate with us not to buy from the U.T.C." That is so, is it not? Correct. 10

I want to return to the meeting which I dealt with originally, that is one of the 5th February, 1956, G, 211 merely for the purpose of reading in something which was not referred to by the Cr wn. Simon Tyiki opened this meeting, and he opened it with the following 15 words ; "The A.N.C. s ys that love thy neighbour as you love thyself. The Europeans are just a small clique but they rule such a big number. We are appealing to the Dutch that we should all stay in peace in this country". That is how the meeting was opened? That is correct. 20

And then the first speaker was an unknown man speafeing in Sechuana, interpreted into Zulu and he speaks about their all being prisoners and the police station at Newlands having been filled up, and he deals with the question as to whether their wives should carry 25 passes. The next speaker was Tshabalala, whom you read in full, as also Eampolawane. Thereafter Modise spoke, in which he said inter alia - he speaks about these "lunatics running amok in larliament" and he speaks about the policy which will entrench their ideas of supremacy 30 and he sayd "I tell you that they are contradicting them-selves going about saying that the only policy is territorial

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.