S.A. lawyer explains why he left

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32678, 6 August 1971, Page 9

S.A. lawyer explains why he left

(By

JOEL CARLSON.

New York]

Joel Carlson was the leading defence lawyer for black South Africans until he left his country clandestinely a few weeks ago. The article comes from the “New York Times” Special Feature Service, through N.Z.P.A.

NEW YORK.

It is the duty of a lawyer to guard the individual against all invasions of his liberty by authority. It is his duty, too, to expose injustice, corruption and brutality. The measure of freedom in any society is the extent to which lawyers and others can fulfill these functions.

By the end of 1970 my ability to act as a lawyer in South Africa had been severely curtailed by the secur-

ity police. After I exposed security police torture of detainees, > the Justice Minister used his arbitrary powers to have my passport removed. Eighteen detainees had died in detention. There was strong evidence of assaults, of electric shock and other tortures. The withdrawal of my passport marked an intensification of the campaign to harass and intimidate me. When I used my telephone to insert a newspaper advertisement for the sale of my i car (not giving my name or i address) my car was shot up i and extensively damaged hours later. My office and • telephone (and my bedroom too) were bugged. Privacy was impossible. Threats to wife More difficult were the threats to my wife and children. There were the late-night abusive telephone calls and ■ death threats. A Molotov . cocktail was' hurled at my . study. My office was shot up. I One morning I opened my t mail to find a bomb in a book. Poison-pen letters I named me Communist, capi-

talist Jew, and extorter. Security police subjected some of my staff and clients to interrogation. This was coupled with handsome cash offers and threats of reprisals if the

offers were rejected. One secretary suffered such reprisal and left the country with her family on a one-way exit permit.

These people were tainted only with the guilt of association with me. My efforts to protect them led to their being subjected to more frequent and longer hours of interrogation by security police.

2 a.m. knock

And there was the everpresent threat of the 2 a.m. knock on the door and detention. I knew only too well the horrors of this. Three widows had come to me for help after their husbands had died in detention. I had firsthand knowledge of police methods of interrogation. Persons detained were held incommunicado, in solitary and indefinitely, at the pleasure of the security

police. I prepared for this with my wife. We planned what was to be done at home and in my office. Each night I put next to my bed toothbrush and shaving cream, which could also be used for lice and bugbites. I kept by my bedside a Bible presented to me by sympathetic churchmen and hoped I might be allowed that book in detention. I waited. But the plan was not to detain me. but to destroy me by smear. It became clear that the battle I had begun 25 years earlier was fast coming to an end. My energy was spent in protecting those close to me - and in keeping sane. The rest

: went to cases that were won in court but lost to arbitrary : administrative action by security police. In 1969 about 100 people i were detained under the Draconian Terror Act Some six ’ months later 22 of them were 1 charged in a special court under the ambiguous "Com-, munism Act” When we exposed in court the weak necesses of the State case, th< torture of both State wit nesses and the defendants, the Attorney General withdrew the prosecution. As the judge solemnly acquitted the 22 defendants the security police waited. When the judge left th< bench, the-- acted. The defen dants were surrounded bj armed police guards and re detained under the Terror Act. More than a year later they were again charged—this time under the Terror Act. Another court Another special court ruled the charges to be the same as before and again acquitted the defendants. The State unsuccessfully appealed but the security police did not await the outcome. All those acquitted were served with 5year banning orders. Some were house arrested and all deprived of the enjoyment of the company of their family or friends. Punishment without trial—a regular feature of life in South Africa—end of people judged innocent was never so blatant What more can a lawyer do than expose injustice and have clients acquitted? But in South Africa this is not enough. The struggle tor me inside South Africa was over. My wife and four young children deserved a better life and, perhaps, I too could contribute from abroad. I applied ■ for the return of my passport i and when once again it was i refused I devised ways and i means of leaving with my ! family. But that’s another u story.