South African Justice

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31588, 27 January 1968, Page 12

South African Justice

It is doubtful whether even the eleventh-hour intervention of the United Nations Security Council will prevent the South African trial of 35 native accused from South-West Africa from being carried to its inevitable, sordid conclusion. But the attempt is at least being made and if the South African Government is still disposed to deny contemptuously the validity of United Nations rulings where South African domestic affairs are concerned, Mr Vorster may nevertheless reflect that world opinion will be ranged solidly against him. In December, the 35 defendants were brought before the Supreme Court of Pretoria on charges of “terrorism”. They had committed no offence in South Africa. They were seized on political grounds in Ovamboland, in SouthWest Africa, taken by train some 2000 miles to Pretoria and held there incommunicado—some of them for more than a year—while the Vorster Government passed special legislation to enable their trial to take place.

This Terrorism Act, as it was styled, was made retrospective to 1962—in itself a legal device appalling in its cynicism. While the trial was proceeding it was condemned by the United Nations General Assembly, using almost its entire voting strength. The South African Government ignored the condemnation, just as it had ignored the prior United Nations vote terminating its mandate over South-West Africa. The cancellation of the mandate, in the United Nations view, deprived South Africa of the right to administer or legislate for the territory. Mr Vorster’s counter, eight months later, was to pass a new law and apply it specifically to South-West Africa —obviously with the intention of intimidating its halfmillion Africans into acceptance of apartheid. When the Act went through, “The Times” described it as “a fearsome piece of legislation, if “the word legislation may be applied to an Act “ which stipulates that it came into force five years “ before it was signed ”. It provided conveniently flexible definitions of what would constitute “ partici- “ pation in terroristic activities ”. It provided also that the penalties of guilt should be the same as those for treason—which would include execution. The onus of proof of innocence was said to rest with those charged. Not surprisingly, the accused, most of them illiterate and all of them bewildered, closed their cases without giving evidence. The minimum sentence provided by the Act is five years; and it would result from summary trial by a judge, without jury.

The “ New York Times ”, in a denunciation of the trial as “ an outrageous offence against civilised “ behaviour, social and legal justice, and international “ law ”, said that it violated ten or more articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But, it added, the law was plainly designed as “an “ instalment of terror for consolidating South “ Africa’s control over territory it has never owned ”. As has been suggested, the outcome of the Security Council’s call for the release of the accused is likely to be a negative one. But, under the pressure of world opinion, the Pretoria court may at least be persuaded towards leniency—within prescribed limits. It is depressing to think that nothing more can be done to oppose and expose a tyranny that in South Africa passes for government and claims respect for the rule of law.