Dean denies allegations

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32677, 5 August 1971, Page 13

Dean denies allegations

(N.Z.P.A.-Reuter —Copyright) PRETORIA, August 4. Mr Louis Henry Jordaan, an undercover security policeman, cathedral altar assistant and one-time friend of Johannesburg’s Anglican dean, faces further cross-examination today from the dean’s counsel, who has described him as an agent provocateur.

The dean, Gonville ffrench-Beytagh, aged 59, has pleaded not guilty to 10 main charges under the Terrorism Act.

He faces a minimum fiveyear prison sentence if convicted.

One of the charges alleges that he incited Mr Jordaan, a member of his congregation to commit acts of violence and to help to prepare for a violent uprising to overthrow the Government.

The charges also includes plotting the distribution ofl more than 50,000 rand! ($64,290) from banned organisations to banned people and organisations. Defence counsel (Mr Sidney Kentridge) yesterday described Mr Jordaan’s evidence a “figment of a fevered imagination”—an allegation denied by the witness. Mr Kentridge told the Court that reports by Mr Jordaan to the security police completely distorted remarks made by the dean, and that some of their contents were totally untrue. Counsel added that, far from the witness ever enjoy-

ihg the confidence of the accused, as Mr Jordaan had alleged during his evidence-in-chief, the dean had found him “an extremely wild and unstable person.” The dean utterly denied that he had ever urged Mr Jordaan to help in a grand design of subversion to overthrow the Government, as Mr Jordaan alleged. “The dean disputes entirely that he ever urged or instructed you to join or infiltrate the security police,” counsel told the witness. “That was your idea, which you were continually pressing on the dean.” Mr Jordaan was still in the witness box when the (hearing was adjourned.

WELLINGTON STATEMENT The South African Consu-late-General in Wellington today issued the following statement:

“There seems to be some confusion about the provisions of the Terrorism Act in South Africa. “It is not correct to state that, in terms of the Terrorism Act the accused is guilty until he proves himself innocent.

“The onus is on the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Until and unless the court is satisfied that guilt has been proved, the accused is assumed to be innocent.

However, if the accused is found to be guilty of the offence in question, the onus is on him to show that he did not intend to endanger the maintenance of law and order as defined in the act. “The fact remains, however, that the prosecution must first prove the guilt of the accused. Up to that point he is assumed to be innocent.”