j.r.6.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA.

(TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION).

Pretoria: 13th February, 1964.

BEFORE:

The Honourable Mr. Justice DE WET (Judge President)

In the matter of:

THE STATE versus NELSON MANDELA & OTHERS.

Charge: SABOTAGE.

Plea: All – NOT GUILTY.

For the State: Dr. P. YUTAR and Others.

For the Defence: Mr. BERRANGE and Others.

- EXTRACT OF EVIDENCE –

ISMAIL ESSOP MAKDA (still under oath): (Recalled).

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COAKER:

Mr. Makda, the last time you gave evidence here, you handed in Exhibit K(52), that is the letter (ledger) card with the heading “Defence and Aid!” I would like you to look at that exhibit again, please. Those three pages. --- Yes, my lord.

Now, if you look at the second page of that exhibit you will see that it shows on the 18 th of March, 1963, an amount of R10,000.00 came in from C.G. Williams, and on the same day was paid out in five cheques? --- That is so, my lord.

Now, apart from that is it correct that this letter (ledger) card shows that under this heading that there were quite a substantial number of petty transactions – small amounts went in and small amounts went out? --- That is so, my lord.

Into an account entitled Defence and Aid? --- That is so my lord.

So that it would appear that there was such an account

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 2 –

actually in use in the books of the partnership? --- Yes, my lord.

And running from a date in 1962, right up until the 21st June, 1963? --- That is so, my lord.

The only curious feature of this account, to which attention has been drawn, relates to this sum of R10,000.00 from C.G. Williams? --- That is so, my lord.

We have it from Schedule “I” – Exhibit “I” – that all the five cheques that were paid out against that amount of R10,000.00 were requisitioned by Harold Wolpe – do you remember that? --- Yes, my lord.

All those five cheques were signed by Harold Wolpe, himself? --- That is so, my lord.

Three of them were payable to cash? --- That is so, my lord.

When you signed those cheques, Mr. Makda, were your suspicions aroused that anything unusual was happening? --- No, my lord.

Did you accept Wolpe’s requisition, or his request? --- Well, it wasn’t a requisition, my lord. He brought the cheques to me.

I beg your pardon? --- He brought the cheques to me.

He brought them to you and he asked you to sign them? --- That is so, my lord.

Now I want to turn, Mr. Makda, to the account of Mr. Ezra, in the books, and to deal with certain requisitions, with reference to that account. We have it from Schedule “F”, that the first three cheques mentioned on that schedule were requisitioned by Wolpe. I want you to look at the triplicate copy of cheque number 3060 – that is Exhibit “K(30)”, - and we now have before you the relevant cheque book, where you will find the triplicate copy, and I think, the requisition? --- That is so, my lord.

Is that requisition the mark of Harold Wolpe? --- That is so, my lord.

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 3 –

So Exhibit “K(30)” – cheque in favour of Webber, Wentzel, Hofmeyr, Turnbull and Co., for R107.35, was requisitioned by Harold Wolpe? --- That is so, my lord.

Now, I want you to turn on, please, to cheque number 3152, in favour of Crest Garage. --- That is so, my lord.

You have it before you? --- I have it my lord.

That is exhibit “K(32)”. Do you see the requisition there? --- I do, my lord.

That is the mark of Wolpe, isn’t it? --- That is so.

And whatever following cheque to which there is reference – that is cheque number 3276 – is it still in that book? --- No, my lord.

That is Exhibit “K(33)”. Cheque in favour of A.B. Furman, for R80.75. --- Yes, my lord.

Do you see the requisition for that? --- There are two requisitions, my lord.

There is a typed requisition, and then, on top of that, I think, there is a requisition written out? --- That is so.

The top one – the one that is written out – is that authorised by Wolpe? --- Yes, my lord.

The typed one underneath it – can you find any authorisation at all? --- I didn’t follow the question, my lord.

On the typed out one, did you find anybody’s authorisation. --- Yes, my lord.

Whose is that? --- Wolpe, my lord.

It would seem that this cheque, for some reason or other, was requisitioned on two separate occasions? By Wolpe? --- Yes, my lord.

We will . . . in fact, the first requisition was written out on the wrong sort of form, wasn’t it – on something called Authority for Receipt? --- That is so, my lord.

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 4 -

Which was crossed out in handwriting, and written “cheque” instead? --- That is right, my lord.

It looks as if Mrs. Schneier(?) might have objected in getting the wrong form, and typed out a proper requisition for Wolpe to sign? --- I don’t know what the reason was for the two.

Now, Mrs. Schneier would know the answer to that question? --- I presume so, my lord.

Now I want to trun to the account of Letele. That is dealt with in Schedule “E”. The number of the first cheque I wish to deal with is 4231. I want you to look at the triplicate copy of that cheque. That was a cash cheque, signed by Harold Wolpe, and James Kantor, for R1,030.00. --- That is right.

You have it? --- Yes, my lord.

The cheque itself is Exhibit “K(9)”. Have you got the triplicate of that exhibit? --- That is so, my lord.

We find that the whole of the contents of the cheque were evidently written out in the book by Wolpe? --- That is so.

Because the word “cash” – the amount in words and figures – the words “crossing cancelled” – the word “bearer” – all are written in, and have come through, right onto the third copy, not so? --- That is so, my lord.

And Harold Wolpe’s signature has also come through, in three places? --- That is so, my lord.

So that evidently, Mr. Makda, that cheque must have been written out by Wolpe himself, in the cheque book? --- That is so, my lord.

Now, when that happened, I think you told us last time – when one of the partners himself wrote out a cheque, it was quite common that no requisition was ever made out? --- That is so, my lord.

The second signature on the cheque – that of James Kantor, does not appear on the triplicate? --- No, I haven’t got

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 5 -

the original in front of me, my lord.

The second signature, take it from me, is that of James Kantor. --- That is so – it does not appear on the third copy.

It does not appear on the triplicate copy? --- That is so, my lord.

The cheque must have been removed from the book before he signed it? --- Yes, my lord.

So it would be reasonable to infer, would it not, Mr. Makda, that the cheque must have been taken out of the book, and placed before James Kantor – either alone, or with other cheques? --- That is so, my lord.

Now, the next one that I want you to deal with is a cheque – number 4258. --- I have got it in front of me, my lord.

In this case the requisition slip does not appear to have been signed. --- That is so, my lord.

In whose handwriting is the body of this cheque? --- Mrs. Schneier’s handwriting, my lord.

I would like you to have before you, please, the original cheque – that is Exhibit “K(12)”. --- I have it, my lord.

A cheque for R200.00 – payable to Sells(?) (Selves) – or R. Sells? (Ourselves) --- That is so, my lord.

Will you look at the bank stamps appearing on the face of this cheque. Do you see the one in the middle of the cheque that this was an unpaid cheque of the 15th of September, 1962. --- Yes, my lord.

And it was endorsed at the top of the cheque “Other signature required”? --- That is so, my lord.

Now, look at the back of the cheque, you will see that it had been endorsed by “James Kantor”? --- That I so.

On Behalf of the firm, and originally deposited on the 14th of September. No, I think I am wrong about that – it was originally deposited on the 15th of September? --- That is

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 6 –

so my lord.

It was probably endorsed on the 14th of September, - does that rubber stamp on the back refer to the endorsement? --- No.

Is that a bank stamp – that rubber one? --- It is a bank stamp, my lord.

So it must have reached the bank on the 14th of September, and then been rejected on the 15th? --- That is quite possible, my lord.

Mr. Makda, from all this it is quite apparent, is it not, that this cheque, was laid before Mr. Kantor, and endorsed by him, and then deposited without his having signed on the face of it? --- That is so.

And at some later stage when it had been sent back, it must have been laid before him for his signature? --- That is obviously what happened, my lord.

So it is quite apparent, that when Mr. Kantor endorsed this cheque, he didn’t even look at the face of it to see who had signed it, or what it was about? --- It might be true.

Well, if he had looked at it, he would have realised that it was defective – the signature – and he would probably have signed it, wouldn’t he? --- Yes, my lord.

Now, look at the ensuing cheque, in this series – number 4260 – that is Exhibit “K(13)”. I would like you to have the original exhibit, please. “K(13” is a cheque payable to Sells (Selves) for R250.00? --- That is so, my lord.

Now, once again, Mr. Makda, this cheque was returned “Another signature required? --- That is so, my lord.

It had already been endorsed by Mr. kantor, the same date stamp – the 14th of September? --- That is so, my lord.

So that – to put it shortly to you – this same reasoning applies to this cheque as to the prior one? --- Yes, my lord.

You did tell his lordship last time, didn’t you, that

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 7 –

it is not uncommon to see Mr. Kantor, when a private (pile of) cheque(s) has been placed before him for endorsement, simply racing through them and endorsing them, without bothering to look at the face of them at all? --- That is so, my lord.

Because the duty of checking these matters rested with Mrs. Schneier, before they were placed before him? --- Not Mrs. Schneier – the receptionist, my lord.

Now, will you turn to the triplicate copy of cheque number 4276. --- Yes, my lord.

Now, that is a cheque for . . . the original of that is Exhibit “K(15)” – a cheque for R455 – R145.00? --- That is so.

Now, looking at the triplicate copy you find that the signature of Harold Wolpe comes through on three places? --- That is so, my lord.

The whole of the words and figures on the cheque come through? --- Yes, my lord.

But the signature of James Kantor does not come through? --- That is so.

So evidently this cheque must have been written out in full and then torn out of the book, and then at some later stage signed by James Kantor? --- It would be so, my lord.

There was no requisition for that cheque, and what you said previously about cheques been written out by a partner would apply? --- That is so.

Was that cheque written out by Wolpe? --- The cheque was written out by me, my lord.

But it was signed by Wolpe before it was removed from the book? --- That is so, my lord.

When you wrote out that cheque, Mr. Makda, did you think that something very suspicious, or something that ought to be looked into was talking place? --- No, my lord.

Did you write it out at the request of Wolpe? --- That

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 8 –

is so, my lord.

I would like you to look at the original . . .

BY THE COURT:

Before you go any further – would he have told you at the time what he wanted the cheque for or wouldn’t you enquire? --- My lord, I can only presume that I must have been in the accounts office, writing out cheques, myself, my lord, and Wolpe might have walked in and said “Do me a favour – write me out a cheque”. I have no doubt that he then signed it.

Would he normally tell you what he wanted the cheque for? --- Yes, my lord.

But you can’t remember at this stage? --- Obviously not.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COAKER (Continued):

He would give you some explanation with which you would be satisfied? --- He would not have given me an explanation at all, my lord.

He might not have given you one? --- That is right.

And if he had given you one, obviously you were satisfied with it? --- That would be so, my lord.

Now, turn to the triplicate to the cheque number 4341, cheque payabel to A. Kathrada. The original of this is Exhibit “K(16)”. You have the triplicate? --- I have, my lord.

Is this cheque in Wolpe’s handwriting? --- That is so.

Once again the words and figures at the bottom of the cheque come through? --- Yes, my lord.

Onto the triplicate? --- That is so.

And so does the signature of Wolpe in three places? --- In two places, my lord.

I have got such a bad photostat that I cannot see how many places it comes through. Will you just tell me where it does come through? --- Where the crossing is cancelled and the order was made to bearer, my lord.

And on the face of the cheque – at the place for the signature? --- It does not appear, my lord.

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 9 -

Once again that cheque is entirely written out by Wolpe, as far as the triplicate shows? --- That is so, my lord.

Would you please look at the triplicate of cheque number 4385. That is the cheque number. That is Exhibit “K(19)”. Cash cheque signed by Harold Wolpe and James Kantor. Would you compare the original – Exhibit “K(19)” – with the triplicate? You have the original? --- Yes, I have, my lord.

And the triplicate. Now, looking first at the triplicate copy you see the words R700.00 only, and the figures? --- That is so, my lord.

Those are written in Wolpe’s handwriting? --- That is so.

And you see the signature of Harold Wolpe? --- Yes, my lord.

And the crossing cancelled by Harold Wolpe? --- Yes.

All that in his handwriting? --- That is so.

Also the word “bearer”? --- Yes.

Now, look at the word “cash”. It is written in on the triplicate in a different handwriting, isn’t it? --- That is so.

Look at the face of the original cheque – do you see the word “Cash” there --- Yes, my lord.

You were questioned about that during your evidence in chief. --- I was, my lord.

Now, the word cash on the original is a different handwriting from that which appears on the triplicate? --- That is so, my lord.

And in the triplicate, can you say whose handwriting it is? --- No, my lord.

But it is not the same handwriting as appears on the cheque? --- No, my lord.

And it is also not the handwriting of Wolpe who made out all the figures and the rest of it? --- That is so.

So it would seem that that cheque must have been torn out completed, but for the payee? --- That is so.

But for the second signature? --- That is so, my lord.

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 10 -

The payee inserted later by one person on the face of the cheque, and a different person on the triplicate slip on the cheque book? --- That is so, my lord.

Now, on the triplicate slip – how is it written? Is it in carbon, or some original form of writing? --- It is original.

A ball point pen, does it look like? --- It is a pen, not an ball point.

An ordinary pen? --- Yes.

BY THE COURT:

You say it is not Wolpe’s handwriting? --- It is not Wolpe’s handwriting? --- It is not.

On the triplicate either – neither of them? --- That is so, my lord.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COAKER (Continued):

Neither of them is Wolpe, and once more, the writing on the face of the cheque is a different to the hand that appears on the triplicate? --- That is so, my lord.

Now, look at cheque number 4484 – once again at the triplicate – I think you have got it in that book, have you not? Is it the wrong book?

BY THE COURT:

What is the Exhibit number? --- It is “K(20)”.

WITNESS:

I have got it, my lord.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COAKER (Continued):

Cheque payable to cash for R19.25? --- That is so, my lord.

Signed by Harold Wolpe, and Abraham Kantor, this time? --- That is so, my lord.

This cheque is in whose handwriting? --- It is in the handwriting of Harold Wolpe, my lord.

And once again, the word “cash”, the amount in words and figures – cancellation of the crossing - and the substitution of “bearer” for “order”, are all through to the triplicate copy? --- That is so, my lord.

But the second signature is not? --- That is so my lord.

Have you got the original of Exhibit “K(20)”? --- I

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 11 -

am sorry, my lord. The second signature is also through.

You have it there, have you? --- Yes, my lord.

I am sorry, but my photostatic copy is so bad that it doesn’t appear on it. And the second signature is? --- A. KANTOR.

I see. So on this occasion the cheque must have been completed and signed before it was removed form the book? --- That is so, my lord.

Mr. Makda, have you got the original of that cheque now? --- I have my lord.

Exhibit “K(20)”. It was endorsed by you? --- That is so.

Now, what was this all about – do you know? --- No, my lord.

When you endorsed . . . when he endorsed that cheque, did you bother to enquire whether there was a valid requisition for it? --- No, my lord.

Was there anything about it to arouse your suspicions? --- No, my lord.

Was this quite in accordance with the parctice that was carried on in the business? --- There were quite a few of these cheques for “cash” my lord.

They might have been for stamps, or any petty disbursement, not so? --- Yes, it is quite possible.

For R19.25? --- It is quite possible, my lord.

You can’t at the moment say what it was for? --- No.

BY THE COURT:

Is there no name on that cheque? --- There is my lord.

What account is that? --- A. Letele, my lord.

I don’t follow that last question. You won’t draw petty cash on the account of a client, would you? ---

MR COAKER:

Let me put it this way, sir.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COAKER (Continued):

Mr. Makda, if some cash expenditure in respect of the affairs fo this client had occurred, it would have been quite normal then to draw a cash

.

I.S. MAKDA.

- 12 –

cheque to balance the books, would it not? --- That would be so.

I think you told us that last time in your evidence, that sometimes cash cheques were drawn, not so? --- That is so.

And when I use the expression “petty cash”, I mean the expenditure of petty cash in some matter connected with the client’s account? --- That would be so, my lord.

Obviously you would never, under any circumstances, draw a cash cheque, or any sort of a cheque, on a clients account, in respect of expenditure which had nothing to do with that client? --- No, my lord.

What is significant, Mr. Makda, is that in none of these instances, did you trouble to check up, or find out in what respect this expenditure could be justified. You simply signed when these cheques were put before you? --- Yes, my lord.

Now,I want to ask you about one other matter, Mr. Makda. With regard to civil matters, in the office of James Kantor and Partnership, I suggest to you that each partner kept his own files in his own office, is that right? --- That is so, my lord.

And when a file was made out, with it there was made out a card? --- That is so, my lord.

Whenever that matter was required to come up for further attention, or was expected to come up for further attention, the appropriate card would be placed in an appropriate portion of a card filing system? --- That is right, my lord.

And on the day in question the secretary of each partner would collect the cards, and then get out the files, and place them before the person concerned? --- That is so.

But the files remained in the office of the man concerned? --- That is so, my lord.

And unless he was poking around in some one else’s office he would never become aware of what matters were or were not

.

I.S. MAKDA.

- 13 -

being handled by the other persons in the firm? --- That would be so, my lord.

As far as Mr.Kantor was concerned, his files weren’t even kept in his own room, they were kept in his secretary’s office? --- That is so, my lord.

Everybody else’s files were kept in their own rooms? --- That is so, my lord.

I suggest to you that you have never seen Mr. Kantor going around the office, exploring what matters were in other people’s cabinets? --- He never came to my office at all, my lord.

And you never saw him do that in any one else’s office, either? --- Not within my knowledge, my lord.

I say you never saw him do that? --- I never saw him do that, no, my lord.

With regard to criminal matters a somewhat different system was followed? --- That is true, my lord.

In that connection criminal matters were all diarised in a Hortor’s Diary? --- That is so.

They were also written into a small pocket diary for each member of the firm? --- That is so, my lord.

This was done by the receptionist? --- That is so.

So that there was little, or no, danger of any criminal matter that was on the roll, ever being overlooked? --- That is so, my lord,

On the day that a matter came up for consideration in a criminal court, the file would be extraced, and would be handed to the appropriate person? --- That is . . . what happened is this – the procedure was that the files were extracted the evening before – the afternoon – and in the morning left on the receptionist’s desk, and every person coming to the office dealing with the matter takes his matter, marks it off, and leaves the others for the next person to come and call for and collect.

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 14 –

So that it would come to the notice of those members of the firm, what was happening in one another’s criminal practices, or at least, what matters there were in the office? --- That is so.

I want to ask you about one other thing, Mr. Makda. Are you aware of the fact that on some occasions, letters were written from the office, by Wolpe, addressed to persons with whom he was not allowed to communicate? --- Yes, my lord.

When that happened, Wolpe didn’t put his own name at the head of the letters, when he dictated it, did he? --- That is so, my lord.

He used your name? --- Yes, he used my name, my lord.

And he also used the name of James Kantor? --- That is so.

MR. COAKER:

No further questions, my lord.

BY THE COURT:

I didn’t quite follow that – was Wolpe restrained from communicating . . .---

MR. COAKER:

Perhaps I can lead this evidence through this witness.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COAKER (Continued):

Wolpe was a listed Communist, was he not? --- That is so, my lord.

And there came a stage when certain listed persons, or banned and listed, persons, were prohibited from communicating with one another? --- That is so, mh lord.

And your evidence last time was that after that had happened, certain persons, who came to the office – actually to see Wolpe – used to go into your office? --- That is so.

Because they were not supposed to see Wolpe? --- That is so, my lord.

They also were not supposed to communicate with him? --- That is so, my lord.

So when he wrote letters to these persons, to your knowledge, he would sometimes head the letter, as he would, I think, sometimes also sign the letter with your name? --- I don’t

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 15 –

know about the signature. I have seen the duplicate copies of these letters.

And you no nothing about the letter – you did not dictate it? --- I never dictated it.

And you knew in fact that Wolpe made use of your name for this purpose? --- That is so, my lord.

Did you ever report that fact to James Kantor? --- I only came to find that out later, my lord.

Whilst it was going on it never came to your notice? --- No, my lord.

But you have subsequently seen the duplicates of letters which you had nothing to do with? --- That is so, my lord.

But they had your name on them, as having been the originator of the letter? --- That is so, my lord.

And presumably this is a matter that is within the knowledge of whoever did the typing of Wolpe? --- That is so.

Who is this person? --- Mrs. Chafkin, my lord.

Presumably she must have been able to confirm to the police what you told them about the reason why your name appeared on letters for which you were not responsible? --- I don’t know whether the police have questioned her on that, my lord.

No, you wouldN’t but I say she could confirm it? --- That is so, my lord.

MR. COAKER:

No further questions.

RE-EXAMINATION BY DR. YUTAR:

When did you first get to know that Wolpe had written letters and used your name in the office of James Kantor? --- Sometime after Mr. Wolpe had disappeared.

When was that? I want to know when did you first get to know that? --- When I had occasion to start dealing with his matters in his absence, my lord.

What was the first letter you came across? --- I can’t just pinpoint them, my lord.

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 16 –

How many such letters are there? --- I could point out matters of Mrs. Mandela, Mr. Harmel – those are the two whom I can straight away say I found letters in the cover, under my name, and not dictated, or written by me.

And that was, as far as Wolpe was concerned, a dishonest thing to do? --- certainly my lord.

Did you report that? --- No, my lord.

Why not? --- There was nobody to report to, my lord.

Did you mention it to the police? --- Yes, I did, my lord.

What was the time- was it after the escape of Wolpe? --- That is right, my lord.

And when did you first notice that Wolpe had used the name of Kantor? --- The same time, my lord. I was going through the correspondence, my lord.

What made you go through the correspondence? --- I had to go through these covers to see whether there was anything that had to be attended to, my lord.

And did you ever mention that to Mr. Kantor? --- I don’t remember having mentioned it to him, my lord.

On his release? --- No, my lord.

Why not? --- I have not spoken to Mr. Kantor about the case at all, my lord, since his release.

Mr. Kantor sought my permission to be allowed to speak to you – did he not speak to you? --- He spoke to him, . . . to me every day my lord . . .

Yes, I know. Did you ever report this to him? --- No, my lord.

How did the Defence get to know that – that Wolpe was using your name, and that of Kantor’s? --- They must have found out, my lord.

From whom? --- From possibly Mrs. Chafkin, or somebody else in the office.

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 17 -

You don’t know? --- No, my lord.

But you didn’t report it? --- No, my lord.

And you made no mention of it to the police? --- I did.

When? --- When I was being questioned.

You mentioned it to the police? --- Yes, I did, my lord.

You mentioned it in your statement? --- I must have, my lord.

What was your position in this firm? --- Originally I was an articled clerk, but when my articles had expired, I stayed on as an ordinary clerk, my lord.

Were you at any time a partner of the firm? --- No.

You were at all times an employee of the firm, in some form or other? --- That is so, my lord.

Would it be within your province to query what either Mr. Kantor or Mr. Wolpe did? --- No, my lord.

You did tell his lordship that once you asked Wolpe where money was obtained so quickly, and he told you to mind your own business? --- That is so, my lord.

Did that have any effect on you, as far as your future carrying out of your duties in the office – did it have any effect on you? --- No.

Did you ask any more questions thereafter? --- No, my lord. I did ask questions, but this was more a surprise than a question, my lord.

I don’t follow the difference? --- The fact that he brought in such a large amount of money, after only a short period of time – well, I mean, it is difficult to get such a large amount of money in such a short period of time.

So you asked him, and he told you to mind your own business? --- That is so, my lord.

And did you mind your own business there? --- I always did my lord.

In fact, can you tell his lordship, whether there was

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 18 -

any other occasion when you querried either Mr. Kantor or Mr. Wolpe? --- There must have been. I can’t remember off hand.

But can you recall any such occasion? --- I recall one incident, many years ago, my lord, when I was in Mr. Kantor’s office, and I was fumbling around in front of his cupboards, my lord. He hit me on my hand, and told me to mind my own business and to leave his cupboards alone, my lord. But that was many years ago, my lord.

So we have two partners now who told you to mind your own business? --- That is so, my lord.

Did you learn your lesson? --- I did my lord.

And did you mind your own business? --- I tried, to the best of my ability, my lord.

Did you query any more of these cheques? --- No, my lord.

So what did you say, when you said to my learned friend, that when you signed some of these cheques, they were perfectly innocent, and above board, and you had no reason to query them. What exactly did you mean by that? --- Well, I had seen receipts made out, I had seen letter cards being kept, cheques being . . .

In all cases? --- In all cases, my lord.

For instance this amount of R19.25 which you readily agreed, with my learned friend, might be for stamps. --- It might have been, my lord.

Why do you say it might have been for stamps? --- I didn’t say that, my lord. I said petty cash.

So he said for stamps? --- Yes?

And you said it might have been. Have you got anything to support that? --- No, I have got nothing, my lord.

Is there anything in the account of Letele to show that it was expended for stamps? --- No, my lord.

So again I ask you why you said it might have been for stamps? --- He put it to me, and I agreed with him, my lord.

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 19 -

I agreed that it might have been.

I know you agreed with him. You agreed with a lot of things. You said “Yes, that is so, that is so, that is so”. I thought I was listening to a gramaphone record, at one stage.

BY THE COURT:

I cannot allow you to cross-examine your own witness, Dr. Yutar.

RE-EXAMINATION BY DR. YUTAR (Continued):

Now, how did you come to sign cheques – on whose authority? --- I don’t remember on whose authority it was, but Mrs Schneier brought the bank forms to me, and said that I was being given authority to sign the cheques?

When was that? --- My lord, I would not be able to remember the date now.

And did either Mr. Kantor, or Mr. Wolpe speak to you about it? --- I spoke to Mr. Wolpe, and said that I would rather Mrs. Schneier, who was always in the office, be given the authority to sign the cheques.

Why did you speak to Mr. Wolpe? --- Well, you see, he always dealt with the accounts, and things, in the office.

Did you ever speak to Mr. Kantor about it? --- No, my lord.

Never? --- No.

Now I want to deal with something that my learned friend dealt with in cross-examination, last time. The R5,000.00 that had been paid over to Sepple – do you remember the incident? --- Yes, my lord.

What do you remember about it? --- I was asked by Wolpe to take a parcel for him to Mr. Sepple, of Furman’s office.

Now, I want you to give us full details – tell us exactly what happened? --- My lord, it was, I think, early in the morning and I was in Wolpe’s office, I think, my lord, and he gave me a parcel, and said “Do me a favour, and take this to Mr. Sepple,

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 20 -

please”, my lord.

Was there anything unusual about that? --- It did not at that stage, strike me as unusual at all.

Was there anything unusual about that? --- No, my lord.

Had it ahppened before, or after? --- Yes, my lord.

Well, will you explain to his lordship why – and I am quoting your exact words-you said to my learned friend: “It was the act of a non official nature – that is how it appeared to me”. --- By non-official I meant it had nothing to do with the office. It was personal, for Wolpe.

How did you know it was something personal? --- I very often did personal work, and I never did any delivery for the office at all, my lord. I never delivered processes, or letters – even when I was articled, my lord.

But my question is why did you tell his lordship – what was there about this act, which happened on other occasions, before and after, which made it appear to you that it was an act which had nothing to do with the office? --- He would not have asked me to do deliveries then, my lord.

Why not? --- He would ask the messenger, in the normal course of events, to do the deliveries, my lord.

And you did not know what that contained? --- No, my lord.

Now, you also told his lordship, in re ly to my learned friend, that that it was the only reason why you said that that was an act of a non-official nature? --- Yes, my lord.

There is no other reason? --- No, my lord.

Did Kantor sign cheques in blank? --- THat is so.

How often? --- That is impossible to say, but on many occasions, my lord.

How do you know that? --- Because I would ask him to do that, my lord.

And did he readily agree? --- Yes he never objected to

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 21 -

signing them, my lord.

Tell his lordship exactly what happened, when you asked him to sign a cheque in blank? --- Must I give an example of an occasions or . . . ?

If you can recall a single occasion – all the better – that you asked him to sign a cheque in blank? --- Well, assuming Mr. Kantor was going out of town for a few days, and there would be nobody else to sign in the place of him, then he would sign a series of cheques in blank, and leave them in the book, and anybody who required a cheque, then, of course, made it out, removed the cheque, and got somebody else to counter sign.

Mr. Kantor would merely sign the cheque – it would be perfectly safe, because it needed another signature? --- That is so, my lord.

What about the crossing cancelled? --- In those cases crossing would not be cancelled, my lord.

So if we produce cheques where Kantor signed both the cheque, and initialled the crossing cancelled, it could not have been any of those cases? --_ Not on any of those blank cheques.

Not on any of those blank cheques? --- Not to the best of my knowledge.

The third point . . .

BY THE COURT:

I think it is a convenient stage to adjourn.

COURT ADJOURNS FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES.

ON RESUMING AT 11.30 a.m.

ISMAEL ESSOP MAKDA (still under oath):

MR. FISCHER:

I do not wish to interrupt the proceedings of this Court, but I must rise to protest once again. During the Courts adjournment to names of African spectators, sitting in the Court were taken. My lord, I must protest against this – which I suggest is – disrespect to this Court. It should not ahppen. In addition, there were two arrests made, in the Court. One

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 22 -

was the wife of number (9) accused, and another the husband of one of the spectators.

BY THE COURT:

It was not done while the Court was sitting, Mr. Fischer. --- But still, it was in the precincts of this Court, and the first matter, my lord – that of taking names of spectators is, in my submission, a most serious inroad on the whole conception of an open Court.

I personally cannot see how it affects the administration of justice, Mr. Fischer. The police, presumably, have very good reasons, for what they do.

__________

ISMAIL ESSOP MAKDA (still under oath):

DR. YUTAR:

My lord, I have been asked to raise my voice, but I don’t want the witness or your lordship to think that I am cross. If I raise my voice – I am not cross!! Now, Mr. Makda I have been reminded by my learned colleague, when I dealt with the signing of the cheque by James Kantor, in blank, I forgot to ask you one question. When did he first begin to sign cheques in blank, to your knowledge? --- Ever since I have been with the firm, my lord.

Ever since? --- That is right, my lord.

And until when did that continue? --- It continued until after his detention, my lord.

And now, what was the necessity for it? --- The necessity of it was – if I needed to post a cheque to a client, or whatever the case was, my lord, and I knew that Mr. kantor was nt available, and that I hd to have the cheque urgently, I would get him to sign some in blank.

But then – how many signatures were required for any one cheque? --- Let us take it from the time tht he came into partnership – two signatures were required, my lord.

And there after? --- All the time, two, my lord.

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 23 -

And how many had power to sign cheques? --- At any one stage three people had power.

So if Mr. Kantor was not available, there were still two left? --- Yes, my lord.

Now, I ask you again, what was the necessity for Kantor to sign a cheque in blank? --- Occasionally it ahppened that the other was not available either. On holiday. Like Mr. A. Kantor was often away from the office, not being well.

Did he ever sign cheques in blank – A. Kantor? --- I can’t remember.

Did you ever sign cheques in blank? --- Yes, my lord.

You did? --- Yes, my lord.

At whose request? --- It was once or twice at the request of Mrs. Schneier.

Now, I want to deal with the third point raised by my learned friend in cross-examination – when he referred to the account of Kathrada. I am showing you the file of Kathrada – Exhibit “K(83)” – what did that file deal with? --- It is an action by Kathrada against M . . . and R . . . (?)

In the ordinary course of affairs, hm? --- Yes, my lord.

Are there annotations on the cofer? --- Yes, my lord.

Detailed annotations? --- Fairly detailed.

Under date? --- Yes, my lord.

When were those annotations made? --- After the action was completed, my lord.

Not contemporaneously? --- No, my lord.

How do you know that? --- Because I made them, my lord.

Now, there are several dates here, under June, July, August, October . . . did you make them all at the one time? I would like his lordship to see this.

BY THE COURT:

Is this information extracted from the document on the cover? --- From the document, as well as from consultations

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 24 -

with Mr. Wolpe, my lord.

RE-EXAMINATION BY DR. YUTAR (Continued):

And you sat down on one day and you made all those annotations? --- Not on one day, my lord. As I was drawing the bill of costs. If I couldn’t get it from the correspondence, then I would go to Mr. Wolpe and say “Now, what happened here?”. Then he would give me the information, and I would put it down, and draw the bill of costs, my lord.

Was there any reason why those annotations could not have been done contemporaneously? --- Well, it would have meant going through the whole cover first, and then going to him with my queries.

I beg yours? --- I could have done that, my lord, but that would have menat going through the whole cover first, making the queries, and then asking him questions, as to what happened.

You notice that there are three different types of ink? --- That is right, my lord.

I show you now Exhibit “K(82)”. With what does that deal? --- It is Kathrada – house arrest – my lord.

Who dealt with that matter? --- Mr. Wolpe, my lord.

HOW do you know that? --- It is his handwriting, my lord.

And do you know that for a fact from your own knowledge --- That is so.

Look inside the cover – who dealt with it? --- The letters are written under the name of J. Kantor, my lord.

Who signed it? --- I can’t say that, my lord.

It is written under the name of James Kantor? --- That is right, my lord.

Was there a letter there from the Chief Magistrate addressed to the firm for the attention of Mr. James Kantor? --- That is so, my lord.

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 25 -

When did you first see that? --- This one I saw right now, my lord.

For the first time? --- That is right, my lord.

Any notes on the cover? --- No, my lord.

Why not? --- I can’t give you any reason for that, my lord – not reason.

Is there any difference between the one matter dealt with in “K(83)”, and the matter dealt with in “K(82)”? Any difference, from the point of view of the office? --- Yes.

What is the difference? --- Here we had to tax a bill of costs, in one matter, and the other one would have been a fee to the client.

Is there any notation there, interviews? --- No, my lord.

Or what the fee should be? --- No, my lord.

In fact, only fees sent to him? --- Not from the cover.

Would you like to look at his card? --- I have seen it – there was no fee, my lord.

Can you give any reason for the distinction? --- No.

No, my learned friend, Mr. Coaker, questioned you, about the meetings of banned persons, that took place in your office? --- Yes, my lord.

And you told his lordship that the blinds were down? --- That is right.

Do you know what was discussed at those meetings? --- No, my lord. I was not at the office when those meetings took place, my lord.

But you told his lordship that when you went in they stopped their discussions? --- That is right, my lord.

Now, you have told his lordship too that on one occasion you were out of the office whilst this meeting of banned persons took place in your office, for over an hour? --- That is right, my lord.

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 26 -

What did you do during that time? --- I must have floated around the various offices, my lord.

So that they could have seen you floating around the office – anybody in the office? --- That is right, my lord.

Now, you also told my learned firnd, or said in answer to my learned friend, that the transfer of the registration of a company – the work in connection with the transfer of the registration of a company from the firm of James Kantor and Partners, to Furman, was nothing unusual. Those were your words. “Nothing unusual”. --- It was nothing unusual, in the sense that if your instructions were withdrawn . .. It often happens that clients just withdraw the instructions, and take the matter away.

Do you know of any other instance where the work in connection with the registration of a company was transferred from James Kantor and Partners, to another firm? --- No.

Do you know of my reason why the work was transferred in this case? --- No, my lord.

Now we come to another point. You said, in reply to my learned friend, that the reason for the drawing of cheques in practice details need not be given? --- That is right.

Why do you say that? --- Details are only fiven for purposes of record, my lord.

Well, you have seen these cheque forms – for what reason is the last two lines used? --- To note the person to whom the cheque must be debited, and the reason for the cheque.

Well, if it is in practice not necessary to give the reasons, why were . . . why was this printed Re: Client? --- The Re refers to the person receiving the cheque, my lord. To know why he has received that cheque, my lord.

When provision is made there on the cheque – why was it not utilized? --- I won’t be able to answer that my lord.

Why did you say to my learned friend that it practice

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 27 –

details are not given? --- Need not be given.

Why did you say that? --- Because a cheque is negotiable without the reasons on it, my lord.

I know it is? --- That is what I mean – if the reasons are not given the bank will still . . .

Oh, us that what you meant – the bank will still cash the cheque? --- Yes.

But I am talking now from the point of the bookkeepers, the accountants, the auditors – I don’t want to know anything else . . . Don’t they want to know the reason for the cheque? --- Yes, my lord.

Can you give me any reason why it should not be put onto the cheque? --- I can give no reason, my lord.

Now, I now refer you to Exhibit “K(96)” – here are two cheques. Look at cheque number 4577, and 4579. --- Yes, my lord.

Are the reasons for the cheque given in those two cases? --- Yes, my lord.

And what are the reasons? --- In the one case it was bail – State versus Sithole, my lord, and in the other case it was a refund, State versus J. Kwadaki?

So the reasons are given? --- That is so, my lord.

And the account? --- The account is also given.

Whose account? --- The first instance – that of N. Sithole

The accused? --- The accused.

And the second? --- John Kwadaki(?)

Also the accused? --- Also the accused.

And to the first one is a requisition attached? --- That is right, my lord.

Are the reasons given there? --- Yes.

There we have a case now where the reasons for the drawing of the cheque is given, both on the cheque, and on the

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 28 –

requisition? --- That is so, my lord.

Now, keep that in front of you, and I want you to compare that with something else, now. Now, I would like you to look at “K(55)”. The cheque. Now, is that the normal practice – those two cheques to which I have drawn your attention. --- It is the normal practice.

Any deviation from that, would that be abnormal? --- That is, so, my lord.

Now, look at “K(22)”. Now, that is a cheque made payable to Ruron (Pty) Ltd., and there is a reason given? --- That is so.

What does it say? --- Bail funds, my lord.

Now, was Ruron ever an accused? --- Not to my knowledge.

Was Ruron ever a client of the firm? --- Not to my knowledge, my lord.

Why the difference between “K(55)”, and the other two cheques I have shown to you? As far as the reason is concerned? --- There is no difference, my lord.

Well, the first two cheques that I mentioned, don’t they give the name on the accused on whose behalf bail is paid? --- Oh, yes, my lord.

In this case, “(K(55)” – is the name of the accused given? And on whose behalf bail is paid? --- No, my lord.

So, what was that money saved for? --- I wouldn’t know.

Look at “K(56)”. That is made payable to Amateur Photography? --- That is so.

And it just says “Bail funds”. --- That is so.

On whose account? --- Defence and Aid, my lord.

Was Amateur Photography an accused person? --- Not to my knowledge, my lord.

Was the client . . . was it a client? --- Not to my knowledge.

Can you say why those bail funds were paid out? --- No.

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 29 -

And another thing too – both those amounts “K(55)”, and “K(56)”, are like amounts – R2,000.00 each? --- That is so.

Do you know what it is for? --- No, my lord.

Then you went on to say, in answer to my learned friend, “If the reasons for the cheque are not found on the face of the cheque, then they will be found on the requisition”. --- It would be found?

It would be found on the requisition? --- Yes, my lord.

What would you say if in fact there are cases where the reasons for the cheque are neither given on the cheque, or on the requisition? --- It would be quite possible, my lord.

How would that happen? --- Because the requisitioning does not mention the reason for the cheque and makes out the cheque, and does not put down reasons for the cheque on the cheque itself, my lord.

Why did you say to my learned friend – and I am quoting your words – “if the reasons are not found on the face of the cheque, then they would have been found on the requisition”? --- That is not possible, my lord.

What did you say? --- I would not have said that, my lord. It is not possible.

Well, what would you have siad? --- If they don’t appear on the cheque, then they won’t appear on the requisition, my lord.

Is that in accordance with normal practice? --- No.

Not normal practice? --- No, my lord.

How would the bookkeeper, in the first instance, or the accountant, and in the second instance, the auditor, know for what purpose the cheques are drawn, if there are no reasons given on the cheques, or on the requisition? --- They would have no reason at all.

Now we come to this – you said that cash cheques were

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 30 –

drawn on the Trust account remember? --- Yes, my lord.

There were some instances of cheques drawn on the trust account, but the crossing was cancelled? --- Yes, my lord.

Can you recall what instances? --- Well, where bail has to be paid, and we have money in trust, and the . . . assuming the bail is in a district Court, outside Johannesburg, then our cheques are not accepted, and cash must be deposited with the magistrate. In those instances one has to draw a cash cheque. Alternatively, in transfer duties, and revenue stamps, for cash, drawn on Turst Account, if there is money in the clients account.

That is two instances What other instances? --- If a matter was finalised, and the client did not have a banking account, and wanted her or his money, then a cash cheque was given to him.

That is three. --- I can’t recall, offhand, any more.

Right. Let us deal with each one in turn. If bail had to be found and deposited to a Court outside Johannesburg, t then a cash cheque would be drawn? --- That is right.

Would that also apply to Johannesburg or not? --- No. Our cheques are accepted in Johannesburg.

What details would then be placed on those cheques? --- All relevant details necessary – bail so and so.

And the crossing would be cancelled? --- Yes.

You have already told us in your evidence in chief that Mr. James Kantor always required, if you cancelled the crossing, to give a reason why you wanted the crossing cancelled? --- That is so, my lord.

And did that carry out right to the end? --- No, towards the end he didn’t enquire about it, my lord.

How do you know? --- I think I once or twice went up to him with a cheque for signature, and he just pointed it out to him, and he just signed it, my lord.

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 31 -

Once or twice – let us have the details of that? --- I can’t remember. I can remember that I had been to him, and he just signed them, my lord.

And you can’t recall the details? --- No, my lord.

Was it usual or unusual, my lord? --- Unusual.

And although it was unusual you cannot recall the incident? --- That is right.

The second instance you said that drawing cheques, payable to cash, on the Trust Account, was for payment of stamps? --- Stamps – stamp duty.

Now, can you recall any such instance there? --- Yes, my lord. Revenue stamps, that are purchased weekly or monthly.

Yes? --- Assuming that there is a property transfer, and a large amount of stamps are necessary, because of the value of the property, then, of course, a special cheque is drawn for that.

Details given on the cheque? --- All details given on the cheque.

And the client will be shown as? --- The person to be debited, my lord.

So, I show you again this check of Letele, for R19.25 – Exhibit “K(20)”. Was this cheque drawn for stamps? --- It gives no reason at all, my lord.

Was it drawn for stamps? --- No, my lord.

And I ask you why did you say to my learned friend it might have been for stamps --- He suggested to me that it could have been. It could have been for anything.

Anything? --- Anything.

Stamps too? --- Stamps too.

It was for stamps can you suggest any reason why it should not have been recorded? --- No, my lord.

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 32 -

And the third reason you gave for drawing cash cheques on the trust account is that a client of the firm who didn’t have a banking account, and therefore the corssing would be cancelled and you would pay him out of cash? --- Cash, or let him cash it at the bank.

Can you recall any such instances? --- Yes, my lord.

Who? --- I cannot remember names, but I remember certin third party claims that I had to finalize, where I had to pay out my client, eventually. I drew cash cheques, and there were some large cash cheques.

But did you not tell his lordship that you drew it in fa favour of the person there, but cancelled the crossing? --- That is right, my lord.

So that the payee had to endorse the cheque? --- That is right, my lord.

I am not talking about that. I am talking about cheques made payable to cash? --- No, I don’t recall anything like that.

Finally, did you say to myy learned friend . . . Finally I want to come to this Letele account. Do you know who this Letele is? --- No, my lord.

Never heard of him? --- I subsequently heard of him.

When did you hear of him? --- After Mr. Kantor’s detention, my lord.

From whom did you? --- From Detective Sergeant van Resnburg, my lord.

You didn’t know him at all? --- No, my lord.

Look at his file. File “K(3)”. Ledger card “K(4)”. Is this the file for A. Letele? --- Yes, my lord.

Was this a new client, as far as you were concerned? Was that a new client? --- Well, I didn’t know of a client A. Letele, my lord.

.

I.E. MAKDA.

- 33 -

Whose handwriting is that? --- Wolpe, my lord.

Any instructions there? --- Not on the cover, my lord.

Inside the cover? --- No, my lord.

He paid in a lot of money – R8,000.00? --- Yes, my lord.

On the 20th August, 1962? --- Yes, my lord.

It is also reflected on “K(4)”, not so? --- That is so.

And a whole number of cheques were paid out? --- That is so, my lord.

16 cheques – to different people? --- That is so.

How did the firm know to pay out those 16 cheques to different people? --- I would not know, my lord.

I am interested also in the last amount there. If you total all those amounts it will come to R7,999.25. --- That is so, my lord.

Leaving a balance of 75 cents? --- Yes, my lord.

What happened to that? --- That amount was transferred to the account of Defence and Aid, my lord.

On whose instructions? --- I wouldn’t know, my lord.

Can you now, as one of the employees of James Kantor and Partners, with joint signing powers, can you tell the Court any reason why there should be no instructions, there, as to how the money should be disposed of? --- No, my lord.

DR. YUTAR:

I have no further questions.

__________

COLLECTION NAME: Rivonia Trial Collection

COLLECTION NUMBER: AD1844

ITEM NUMBER: A17.2

DOCUMENT: Extract of Evidence: IE Makda

LEGAL NOTICES

This document is part of a private collection, the Rivonia Trial Collection, donated to Historical Papers at The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

.

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.

Because of the possibility of human and mechanical error as well as other factors, 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.