According to the Minister of Justice, those on trial under security laws abuse the legal rights they are allowed. Speaking in the House of Assembly, Mr. Kruger said that political trials were deliberately prolonged by the defence, obstructing the course of justice:
"The longer a trial lasts, the longer it can be used as a subject of propaganda. Every application for a remand, every objection to procedure and every allegation of improper conduct by the police, offers an opportunity for political demonstrations and for news coverage. The longer the trial lasts, the longer there is the opportunity for demonstrations in and around the court. In that way, a considerable number of police officers and court officials are kept so busy during such a trial that it makes it impossible for those policemen to do other counter-subversive work in the meantime. While a court, with its local staff, is kept busy with one particular case, the next trial cannot take place."
In fact, as is clear from press reports, the state uses the considerable powers at its disposal to ensure that political trials take place speedily and with little publicity. Swift convictions are aided by several factors, particularly the new procedures introduced in 1977.
Firstly, the law now allows a pre-trial hearing at which an accused, especially if unrepresented, may be induced to plead guilty without knowing the nature of evidence against him. Secondly, some political trials may now be heard in lower courts rather than, as previously, going to the Supreme Court, with the greater publicity that attends a higher court. Without information, the family and friends of an accused person cannot arrange satisfactory legal representation; in such cases pro deo counsel, supplied by the court, is arranged.
Thirdly the new Criminal Procedure Act states that confessions (by accused or witnesses) are presumed to have been made voluntarily and it is up to the accused's lawyers to prove otherwise — a virtually impossible task since the only firsthand witnesses of a confession are usually the security police. Once a confession is produced in court, a conviction tends to follow despite the fact that it has been obtained by threat or torture. It is common practice for the police to prepare confessions for detainees to sign, and the use of torture is widespread.
According to F.D. Conradie, MP for Algoa, the Criminal Procedure Act "works outstandingly" in "the more rapid disposing of cases" especially in the lower courts. In Cape Town Regional Court, "bench hours have dropped by 12%" since the Act came into operation on 22.7.77; in Benoni average bench hours per month dropped from 128 to 86; and at Bethlehem average time for disposing of a case dropped to 12 minutes. These courts of course hear non-political cases in the main, but the number of security trials in them is increasing.
Justice Minister Kruger also complained of "vast amounts of money which are made available for the defence of accused persons in security cases". At first glance, he continued, this appeared commendable, but
"the major portion of the vast amounts of money which are provided for legal representation in security cases . . . comes from political organisations which donate money with a political purpose. A man can be persuaded much more easily to undergo training as a terrorist or saboteur if he is assured that if he gets caught his legal representation will be paid for and that if he has to serve a term of imprisonment, his studies will be paid for and his wife and children will be cared for . . . I want to emphasise that we have no objection to money being made available for the defence of accused persons. On the contrary. We welcome that. But it is an entirely different matter if such money is used in a clandestine way to undermine the country."
Concluding, Kruger warned certain members of the legal profession against "contributing to the subversion of the system" they served.
