The trial of Joseph Molokeng, 34, Andrew Moletsane, 23, Benjamin Msenjane, 25, Bheki Langa, 23, Amos Masondo, 22, David Nhlapo, 27, and Miss Phumza Dyantyi, 27, accused under the Terrorism Act of inciting 44 others to undergo military training for the purpose of sabotage and armed revolution opened in March, and was still in progress at mid-April. Several state witnesses, who had been detained for varying periods since the initial arrests were made in August-September 1975, refused to give evidence and made legal history by asking for legal representation while in the witness box.
This development occurred after one of the first state witnesses, Jairus Kgokong 24, an ex-student and local SASO secretary, had been arrested in court after testifying that his statements to the police had not been made voluntarily but under duress and dictation. He had been detained on 21 October; his initial statement, claiming that SASO & BPC operated openly and peacefully was not accepted by the police. After several attempts he was told by the security police office in charge of the case, Capt. Cronwright, "If you don't write what I told you I'm going to break your neck into 24 little pieces". Cronwright assaulted Kgokong who later supplied a satisfactory statement and was released on 14 November. He managed to take and give to his lawyer a piece of paper on which were two paragraphs in Cronwright's handwriting which, he said, he had been told to include in his statement. After giving this evidence Kgokong was arrested. Cronwright's denial that he had assaulted the witness or any other detainee drew laughter in the court.
Captain Cronwright was also alleged by defence counsel to have "doctored" a confession by one of the accused, Mr. Amos Masondo. Under cross-examination Cronwright admitted altering the accused's statement, but said it was to provide a "guideline" for the accused. For example, Masondo described a visit he had made to the Hertzog Tower in Johannesburg (a popular tourist and sight-seeing attraction). Cronwright added the words: "for sabotage purposes." He later admitted that his "clarification" of passages of Masondo's statement relating to Black Consciousness and Marxism produced a result opposite to what the accused originally wrote. The defence challenged the admissibility of the confession.
At the onset of the main case large crowds gathered outside the courtroom in Johannesburg to greet the truck carrying the accused as it left court after the day's hearing. On 17 March the singing in support of the accused was described as "deafening".
The following day, 18 March, a crowd of about 1,000 gathered after the hearing, and obstructed a policeman when he tried to arrest a man (later identified as Kgokong, who had not yet been called as a state witness) who was distributing leaflets advertising a church service on behalf of political prisoners. Police reinforcements were called and the restive crowd dispersed in the direction of Johannesburg station, where it was soon afterwards swollen by home-going workers. The demonstrators chanted 'One man one vote' and pelted the police with stones and dustbins. Several people were arrested and order finally restored at about 8 pm. While the demonstration was in progress a pamphlet bomb exploded outside the Rand Daily Mail office, scattering pamphlets apparently issued by the banned African National Congress. Three days later 5 Africans were fined R30 for violent behaviour.
As a result of the disturbances, the trial was transferred to Pretoria where it reopened on 23 March with Kgokong's evidence. Kgokong said that he left the University of the North (Turfloop) in 1972 in protest against the unjust expulsion of a friend; he had joined SASO and the Black People's Convention in the same year. He said that they operated openly, working for change by peaceful means, but the police refused to accept this. He also said that since 1973 about 200 people had fled the country because of police harassment; "their leaving had nothing to do with military training," he added.
Several other young Africans followed as state witnesses, claiming they had been recruited by Molotsane, Nhlapo and others to undergo military training abroad. One of these, Mr. Ivan Mokgotsi Matlapi, who was warned as an accomplice before testifying, described his activities as a member of the United Students' Body in Soweto and claimed that he later joined a cell which was preparing members to receive military training in Tanzania.
Following Kgokong's arrest two potential state witnesses asked for permission to consult lawyers before giving their evidence. The first of these was Lebogang Motlana, 20, a law student who asked to see a lawyer before undergoing cross-examination. Permission was granted, but when the court resumed after the weekend Motlana did not reappear and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Nine days later it was reported that Motlana, (whose father is a doctor in Soweto), had joined other refugees in Botswana.
The next reluctant witness was Mr. Mosalo Nathaniel Mosogome who, despite a warning from the judge that he might be sentenced to a year's imprisonment, refused to take the oath and give evidence because he did not want to be 'part of the machinery' which might send his friends to jail. The court adjourned briefly to consider what action to take, and when it resumed Mr. Mosogome was not called again.
The second witness to claim the right to legal representation was Mr. Mphakama Mbethe who had been detained under section 6 of the Terrorism Act for 195 days. A lawyer was standing by in the court on his behalf, and the judge adjourned the case to hear argument on the legal point whether a detainee under the Act is entitled to legal representation when called as a witness. The judge, Mr. Justice Irving Steyn, pointed out that under the Criminal Procedure Act a state witness was entitled to a legal representative in the court, but added that there was no precedent for it in South African law. The case is proceeding.
Three young men from Johannesburg who were originally charged in November after having been detained since February 1975 were re-arrested immediately after the Terrorism Act charges against them were withdrawn on 15 March. Weizman Hamilton, 21, Johnny Ramrock, 24, and Christopher Weimers, 21, all of Noordgezicht Coloured Township, had been on bail since being charged with conspiracy to bring about social, political and economic change by violent means. As they stepped out of the dock when the charges were withdrawn they were re-detained under the Terrorism Act. Later the Chief of the Security Police, Maj-Gen. Geldenhuys said new charges were being investigated and would take some weeks to complete.
