“MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL” - HOW THE WHITE REGIME WANTED TO ISOLATE DESMOND TUTU IN 1986

In August 1986 when one of the most radical religious leaders at that time, Desmond Tutu, was busy preparing for his enthronement as South Africa’s first black Archbishop of the Anglican Church, the white establishment was calling for his head. He had enraged the white ruling elite because of his calls for sanctions against the country. The Press Trust of SA News Agency, which was operating under extreme harassment at the hands of the security police at this time, published the following article on August 27 1986 about the anti-Tutu hysteria. “TU TERRIBLE, TU SPECTACULAR, TU TU MUCH” The run-in to the investiture of Archbishop Desmond Tutu on September 7 (1986) in St George’s Cathedral, Cape Town, has been marked by incredible virulence. He has been labelled “fat-cat, vain, impudent and transparent” and lampooned: “Tu terrible, Tu spectacular, Tu Tu much”. The pro-government Citizen newspaper of Johannesburg, which runs an almost daily campaign against the archbishop-elect, wrote in one of its editorials: “There is no greater thorn in South Africa’s flesh than this man of cloth who strides through the world like a religious pop star”, and went on to denounce the enthronement as a quest for “ecclesiastical super-stardom”. More decisively, the right-wing Afrikaner political parties have called for his arrest, prosecution and the confiscation of his passport. In the white Government circles there have been murmurs of treason. It is an unusual situation for white South Africans to be frustrated by a black Christian whose neck they would dearly love to wring. The up-market Business Day newspaper in Johannesburg neatly summed up the problem. Bishop Tutu, it said, “was taunting a blundering Government, calling for sanctions, pronouncing his hatred for capitalism and making his investiture an international showbiz event”. But the newspaper warned that if the Government took the bait and tried to play the Bishop at his own game it would lose.

“The bishop is a master of theatrical politics who has raised the consciousness of half of mankind about apartheid……. He has no need to fear Government. He has won the affection of his people, the honour of his church, the Nobel Peace Prize, and the acclaim of mankind; the only achievement that eludes him as a man of the cloth is martyrdom. “To be tried for treason, and (if the past trials are any guide) to be acquitted, would create an international circus sufficiently sensational to satisfy the lust of cameras for a year or two.” The only point on which the newspaper may be wrong is that the bishop will necessarily be acquitted. The law is specific and provides for lengthy incarceration for South Africans who call for sanctions against their country. There is little doubt that the bishop’s action verges delicately on the treasonable. From the white right-wing point of view the real issue is relatively simple. Will the satisfaction of jailing the bishop outweigh the disadvantage of a bad international Press. It is a judgement on which Bishop Tutu’s head depends. The Citizen newspaper offers some insight into the possible plans that are being made for the Bishop. It says action will not be taken against the Bishop before his installation because it would precipitate an international diplomatic incident given the high-powered guest list. “The spectacular guest list is a ploy to ensure maximum publicity and martyrdom should any steps be taken against him.” But, it adds: “Because of the hostile public opinion generated during Bishop Tutu’s latest trip abroad and the mounting pressure for action in political circles, there is now a considerable body of senior opinion in the Government that favours some form of action at an appropriate time”. This sounds ominous considering that warnings have also been issued recently by both the Minister of Manpower, Mr Pietie Du Plessis, and the Deputy Minister of Trade and Industries, Mr Kent Durr. To boot, State President Mr P W Botha suggested in a jibe at his party’s Federal Congress that the country could soon see the back of the Bishop. It is difficult to say whether the Bishop would have been reviled so bitterly had he been white? In South Africa, however, there is little reason to doubt that race colours most perspectives. In the Bishop’s case, racism has been conveniently submerged in the great debate on sanctions and the “national interest”. Most whites, if they are to be believed, are outraged by the Bishop because he has called for sanctions. The stock argument is that this will put Black people out of work, erode their living standards and increase their misery, “effects that the Bishop is unlikely to suffer because of his clerical wealth”. As the Citizen newspaper put it: “Far be it for us to suggest there should be any actions against the Bishop. But at least we can question why a man who lives so well and travels so far is unconcerned about the lot of so many blacks who are going to suffer because of sanctions.” Seldom is there ever mention that sanctions will affect whites when these arguments are trotted out. It is a remarkable testimony to white altruism which probably explains why social security for blacks in South Africa is virtually non-existent. The fact that some four million blacks in the country – 25 percent of the working population – are unemployed; that nearly two million people in the bantustans are without incomes, let alone jobs, never enters the reckoning. Moreover, in attacking the Bishop, most whites gloss over the fact that he is not the only black person who supports economic pressure on South Africa. The largest labour federation in the country, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), favours economic measures as does the black business lobby, the National African Federated Chambers of Commerce (NAFCOC). The United Democratic Front (UDF) people’s organisation, which commands the support of millions of South Africans, shares similar sentiments as do all of the extra-parliamentary black political groups. In short, the conundrum is that whites are against sanctions for the sake of blacks who favour economic measures that will pressurise the white government into vital political concessions. Those blacks who are the exception to what is very much a rule are inevitably linked to the bantustans, which are essentially and increasingly dependent on South Africa for survival. They understandably, reserve a special ire for the Bishop.

(DR FAROUK MEER - A PHOTO TAKEN WHEN HE ATTENDED A ONE YEAR MEMORIAL SERVICE FOR STRUGGLE ACTIVIST MEWA RAMGOBIN IN 2017) Dr Farouk Meer, an official of the UDF and the Natal Indian Congress (NIC), believes that part of the hostility derives quite naturally from the Bishop’s status. “He is an international figure, with an aura enhanced by the award of the Nobel Peace Prize. As such what he says commands an international audience. “The fact that his views coincide with the opinion of the black majority in the country must hurt whites. By articulating what black people really think, he is breaking a conspiracy of silence imposed on the majority through their lack of political power and through white control of the media. “Whites are quite happy to ignore black feelings as long as it does not reach the outside world. Bishop Tutu has broken the rules of the game and whites are sore.” Dr Meer adds that “deep down whites realise that the real issue is not sanctions, but apartheid”. “They are using the sanctions threat to rally around a common fear. That fear has been raised by a black man in their own backyard. “They have allowed him to grow powerful and now he is a danger. It sticks in the craw of the white minority.”

(ZWELAKHE SISULU - WHEN HE WAS EDITOR OF THE NEW NATION NEWSPAPER) Zwelakhe Sisulu, editor of the New Nation black newspaper, adds another dimension: “South Africa prides itself on being a Christian nation”. “The reality of that Christian commitment is now being questioned by a black man. He is challenging their comfortable Christianity, challenging them to come to grips with the real horror of the apartheid system on which they thrive. This is obviously disconcerting and enraging.” Sisulu says there is also another aspect in which Tutu deeply affronts most white people. “Most whites are still basically paternalistic. They believe that they have allowed Bishop Tutu to ascend in the church. Therefore, he ought to act with reticence and circumspection, indeed respect they finally believe that all blacks must show towards whites.” The white conservative Daily News afternoon newspaper in the city of Durban suggests yet another reason for the backlash against Tutu. In an editorial, it says: “With sanctions barriers going up all around us, it is quite natural for many South Africans to have intimations of paranoia. This may manifest itself in a desire to lash back at those who promote the campaign.” Whatever the psychological motivations there is little doubt that Bishop Tutu has incensed whites as few church people have done in this country. The fact that he has invited international dignitaries to his enthronement has only fuelled white jealousies, inflaming the wrath of a besieged and isolated tribe. They are calling the enthronement in St George’s Cathedral “a showbiz event”. It gives whites the opportunity for sincerely wishing the Bishop breaks a leg. Ends – Press Trust of SA News Agency August 27 1986

MOLLY BLACKBURN – AN ANTI-APARTHEID LIFE DEDICATED TO PROMOTING THE WELL-BEING ALL SOUTH AFRICANS

One of the anti-apartheid activists who played a leading role in highlighting the injustices of the former apartheid regime was Mrs Molly Blackburn. She died at the age of 55 in a tragic car accident early January 1985 at a time when she was a leading figure in the anti-apartheid struggles in the Eastern Cape region of South Africa. Despite the hatred that the apartheid regime spilled out against white opponents of apartheid, more than 30 000 people turned out to say goodbye at her funeral. The Press Trust of SA News Agency, which operated under difficult conditions at this time, published the following article on January 14 1985 about Molly Blackburn and the respect she enjoyed among black South Africans. SOUTH AFRICA: MOURNING TOGETHER The funeral of the 55-year-old white anti-apartheid activist and leader, Mrs Molly Blackburn, in the city of Port Elizabeth on January 2 1985 severely embarrassed the apartheid regime. Not only did the 30 000 black mourners, who descended on the St Johns Church in the city centre, add a dimension of township protest to the proceedings, they also made it clear that “Miss Molly” – as she was affectionately known – had a special place in their hearts. For many of the black mourners it was no easy matter to attend the funeral. They travelled long distances – on foot, by taxis, in buses – from far flung townships to be at the service. For the regime it was an uncomfortable and dangerous demonstration of mutual trust that threatened its black power myth. To avoid a repeat performance, it banned a memorial service for Mrs Blackburn two days later. It was a gross, insensitive and provocative gesture, that did nothing to reduce Mrs Blackburn’s reputation among the black people. She had already proved that it only took a sense of justice to break out of racist white society. Outside observors might find it difficult to understand how the black people can be profoundly sceptical of white society and yet offer a white politician their utmost respect. In a tribute, Mrs Ann Colvin, a colleague of Mrs Blackburn in the Black Sash civil rights group, offers an insight that helps understand the situation: “Molly Blackburn possessed a common touch very rarely found among South Africa’s ruling white classes.” In short it is a sense of justice and not race that divides South Africans – despite what the National Party says and privileged whites like to believe. More importantly “Miss Molly’s” notions of justice were not academic. She fought tenaciously to protect defenceless township dwellers from the brutality of apartheid, especially that meted out by the police and army in the smouldering townships. She stood up. When she died in a tragic car crash in which a friend, Mr Brian Bishop of the Civil Rights League in Cape Town, also died, they were returning from the small Cape Province town of Oudtshoorn. They had been visiting a black township in the ostrich farming district to collect affidavits alleging horrific police brutality following the arrest of 250 youths. It was the kind of assignment they had found themselves undertaking with increasing frequency since the police and army moved into the black townships more than a year ago. Mrs Blackburn, a mother of seven children was elected to the Provincial Council for the Walmer seat in Port Elizabeth in 1981. As the situation in the Eastern Cape took on the profile of a low scale civil war, she became immersed in the problems of the townships. Hours after the Langa massacre in March 1984 when police opened fire on a funeral procession killing 20 people, Mrs Blackburn set up a relief station; when four leading members of the United Democratic Front(UDF) in the Cradock community were murdered by alleged police agents she was there to share the sorrow of their families; when the police in the town of Uitenhage savagely beat a youth while he was manacled to a table, it was “Miss Molly” who rushed to his aid. She attended numerous funerals of victims who had died at the hands of the police in the townships and openly and sincerely shared the sorrow of the residents. Inevitably, her funeral, like those she had attended in the towships, became a political event – a rally against apartheid. It may have taken place in a white suburb in Port Elizabeth, but it was very much a township send-off. It was monitored by a large contingent of security police; the black, green and gold colours of the African National Congress(ANC) were prominent and clenched fists and freedom songs were an integral part of the funeral service.

The black township youth organisation, the Port Elizabeth Youth Congress, formed a guard of honour at the church and acted as pall bearers. The speakers at the inter-denominational service were black and white and came from both the parliamentary and extra-parliamentary groupings. It was eloquent testimony that despite differences in race, religious affiliation and political persuasion, South Africans could relate to a common sense of decency. Mrs Blackburn’s funeral is not the first instance in which black South Africans have shown their respect for white activists who have given their lives for a more just cause. When white trade unionist, Dr Neil Agett, died in police custody four years ago, his funeral in Johannesburg was also attended by thousands of black South Africans. Across the country close to a million black workers, who could not be at the funeral, downed tools to hold services in thousands of work places. Despite the profound demonstration against racism – which is what the funeral came down to – Pretoria is unlikely to stop using the immense resources at its disposal to keep racism alive and blacks out of the political processes. Thus far, however, it has clearly not succeeded in turning blacks into racists. Ends Press Trust of SA New Agency – Jan 14 1985

MUNIAMMA SOCIAL CLUB FAMILY GATHERING AT JAPANESE GARDENS IN DURBAN ON BOXING DAY DECEMBER 26 2019

More than 100 third, fourth, fifth and sixth generation members of our greater Muniamma family got together for a social function at the Japanese Gardens in Durban on Boxing Day, Thursday, December 26 2019. Family members from Port Shepstone, Johannesburg, Durban and even from Perth in Australia attended the social gathering. It was a fantastic event as the Muniamma family is also affected by the movement of family members to all parts of South Africa and the world at large. The extended family is fast becoming nuclear in character because of the demise of most of our elders. Only two aunties, Mrs Savundalay Padaychee, of Dundee, and Mrs Amoy Moodley of Chatsworth,, and one sister-in-law, Mrs Soundler Govender, wife of Percy Govender, are still around today. All of them are in their 80s and 90s. One grand-daughter who is in her 80s, Mrs Panjala Naidoo, also attended the social gathering. The gathering once again infused some inspiration for the younger generation not to forget their extended family members and their roots. THESE ARE SOME OF THE PHOTOS TAKEN AT THE GATHERING:

SOUTHSIDE FM RADIO HAS AT LAST BEEN GRANTED A LICENCE AND FREQUENCY TO START BROADCASTING AFTER MORE THAN 10 YEARS OF HARD STRUGGLE, SWEAT AND SACRIFICES

(Art design by Kamalasen Padyachee) It has been a long, arduous and nerve-wracking struggle over the past 10 years to obtain a licence and frequency for our long, overdue radio station, Southside FM Radio. Now, after a relentless battle and representations to government, political leaders, even the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Communications, and other role players over the past decade, we have at last been given the 107.2 FM frequency. The frequency will cover the greater Durban Metropolitan region, Chatsworth, Phoenix, Verulam, Tongaat, Stanger, Amanzimtoti, Umkomaas, Umzinto, Port Shepstone, Kloof, Pinetown, Hammarsdale, Newlands East, Mount Edgecombe and KwaMashu. The latest developments came about after our Chairperson, Ms Sally Padaychie, recently made representations to the Acting Chairperson of ICASA, Dr Kea Modimoeng; and after two top-level meetings were held with ICASA’s senior officials in Durban on November 27 and at ICASA’s headquarters in Centurion on December 4 (2019).

(Dr M Sooboo (in the forefront) with Mr Marie Ramaya-Pillay, Mr Deva Ponnoosamy and Mr Subry Govender at the meeting with senior ICASA officials in Centurion on Dec 4 2019) Following the meeting with ICASA’s top officials in Centurion, our Board of Governors, headed by Ms Sally Padaychie, decided at a meeting on Friday, December 6, that we would now embark on all the necessary steps to start broadcasting as soon as possible.

(Dr Dilly Naidoo, Sally Padaychie, Subry Govender, Richard Naidoo, Deven Moodley and Swaminathan Gounden at a meeting on Dec 6 2019. Missing from the photo is Mr Logan Naidoo) The Board of Governors adopted the following resolutions: 1. That our premises would be based at 59 Musgrave Road, Durban. 2. That we would commence construction with our studios and office immediately. 3. That we would finalise negotiations with Sentech for the transmission of our radio station. 4. That we would also utilise the internet to transmit our radio station to areas not covered by the 107.2 FM frequency. 5. That we would start recruiting our presenters/DJs and other necessary personnel. 6. That we would start training our presenters/DJs. 7. That we would take all the necessary steps to plan the launch of our radio station within a period of three months as from January 1 2020. We are certain that you all understand the immense struggles we have been through over the past decade to obtain a licence and frequency for Southside FM Radio. Despite the obstacles, disappointments and even sabotage by some elements, our committed Board of Governors persisted with the goal to establish our radio station. In this regard, we want to pay special tribute to our Board members – Ms Sally Padaychie (chairperson), Mr Balan Gounder (deputy chairperson), Mr Richard Naidoo (deputy chairperson), Mr Deven Moodley (treasurer), Mr Denis Naidoo (deputy treasurer), Mr Logan Naidoo, Mr Swaminathan Gounden, Mr Sumeshen Moodley, Mr Richard Govender, Mr Mari Ramaya-Pillay (Johannesburg), Dr M Sooboo (Pretoria), Dr Dilly Naidoo, Mr Kiru Naidoo (PRO) and Mr Subry Govender (Secretary) – for their unstinted commitment to our project over the past decade. We also want to express our sincere thanks and gratitude to our major donors - Mr Logan Naidoo, Mr Singar Nadarajan, Mr Santha Naidoo and Dr Mickey Chetty -; the Merebank Tamil School Society (MTSS) and countless other individuals and organisations for their unyielding support. We also want to express our thanks to individuals such as Mr Deva Ponnoosami of London; Mr Rajen Reddy of KZN Oils; Minister Dr Zweli Mkhize; the late Minister Roy Padaychie; former Minister and current MP, Mr Yunus Carrim; and former Chairperson of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Communications, Mr Eric Kholwane, and Mr Nanda Subramoney of T N Civils of Verulam for their full support in our efforts to obtain our frequency. Southside FM Radio, although a Non-Profit Organisation, will aim to be self-sufficient through the sales of advertisements. Southside FM Radio, which was initiated in 2009 to observe and commemorate the arrival, struggles, and progress of our ancestors from India in 1860 as indentured labourers or “slaves”, will promote the values, principles and development of the people from the cane fields of the former Natal Colony to the new South Africa.

(Richard Naidoo, Subry Govender, Swaminathan Gounden, Dr Dilly Naidoo, Deven Moodley, Roxanne Gounden, Sally Padaychie, Logan Naidoo and Kiru Naidoo at the last meeting of Southside on Dec 18 2019) One of our Board members, Dr Dilly Naidoo, highlighted the views of the Board of Governors when he emphasised that the country’s new democratic constitution guaranteed the cultures of all South Africans. He said: “Our new Constitution promotes and ensures respect for all languages commonly used by communities in South Africa, including Tamil and Telegu, among others. “It also bestows the right of cultural, religious and linguistic communities, to enjoy their culture, … and use their language. “Our new constitution also encourages South Africans to form, join and maintain cultural, …and linguistic associations and other organs of civil society”. He added: “We want to emphasise that South Africa is a country where African, European, and Asian cultural traditions have intersected for some three centuries and more, and in which an emerging national culture is being carried and expressed, by means of many different languages. “But presently the bonding of the peoples is at its weakest. High on the agenda, is the task of uniting our emerging nation at the level of culture and ideology. “We, therefore, understand the integrative and unifying dynamics operating in South Africa today, where languages and cultures are merging organically. And we, as the South Indian-origin Community want to see ourselves as being inside this process. “We believe that presently, the technological and social-structural conditions are keeping us out of this process. “None of the channels of communication presently (tv or radio) in operation, adequately cater to the needs of the Tamil and Telegu (South Indian-origin) Communities. This deprives us of the opportunity of sharing, not only our common histories of oppression and slavery, but also the strategies for emancipation and development, and the sharing of culture, music, drama, and our successes and failures, that will contribute to nation building and our common long-term interests.”

(SSFM Dennis Naidoo with ICASA's Norman Gidi March 10 2017) Our goal at Southside FM Radio is to facilitate communication between the different language groups, and to also assist in the nation building, unifying process. This goal is an authentic expression of the unity in our diversity. The Board want to further emphasise that Southside’s objectives as a cultural radio station would be: • To be an authentic, viable broadcaster catering to the needs of the South Indian-origin Community. • To make available South Indian musical culture. • To provide programs aimed at informing, entertaining, educating, empowering and uplifting the community. • To increase our listenership through sound business practices, journalism of the highest calibre and acceptable cultural offerings. • To accommodate community participation in the activities of the station. To offer the opportunity for citizens and organisations to share their musical tastes, their ideas, and their values with other citizens and organisations. • To establish relevant partnerships and alliances to work towards the ideals and values of the station. • To strengthen civil society at large and to work towards the nation building. • Inspire development of local music and the co-operation, interaction, communication and understanding within and between local artists of all colour and denomination.

We want re-iterate our PRINCIPLES/VALUES are: • Trust and Integrity • Inclusion • Independence • Accuracy and Truthfulness • Impartiality, pluralism, Fairness • Compliance with social values • Transparency and accountability • Co-operate Dignity. In addition to providing a channel for the promotion of the cultural, social, cultural, traditional, linguistic and religious needs of the community, the radio station will act as a BEACON of HOPE and a MORAL VOICE.

(Mr Balan Gounder, one of the oldest Board members of Southside FM Radio since the start of the initiative in 2009) We want to emphasise that we will also be a progressive force and will promote morals, values and principles that are in keeping with the values and principles of the new, non-racial and democratic South Africa. Our freedom icons, including Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, Oliver Tambo, Dr Monty Naicker, Dr Kesaval Goonam, Billy Nair, Dr Yusuf Dadoo, Roy Padaychie and Ismail and Fatima Meer, had fought and sacrificed their lives for these ideals. Southside FM Radio will diligently promote these ideals through its radio programmes.

JOURNALISTS WHO PAID THE PRICE FOR FREEDOM IN THE 1970s

LEST WE FORGET

(ZWELAKHE SISULU, JUBY MAYET AND OTHER UBJ MEMBERS WHO EMBARKED ON A PROTEST MARCH IN THE CITY OF JOHANNESBURG AFTER THE UBJ WAS BANNED ON OCT 19 1977 ALONG WITH 17 OTHER ORGANISATIONS, INCLUDING THE WORLD AND WEEKEND WORLD) In September 1978, a fellow journalist colleague, Philip Mthimkulu, and I had the opportunity of travelling to Nice in France to attend the annual conference of the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ). At this time, we as black journalists were facing relentless harassment, intimidation, detentions, arrests and bannings at the hands of the former apartheid regime after our Union of Black Journalists (UBJ) and 17 other progressive organisations were banned almost a year earlier on 19 October 1977. We had in July 1978 launched the Writers Association of SA (WASA) in the town of Verulam on the North Coast of Natal after our original meeting in the city of Port Elizabeth was banned by the Pretoria authorities. We delivered the following report to the IFJ conference about the actions of apartheid regime in trying to suppress black journalists who emerged as “struggle journalists”. The report delivered to the delegates highlighted the journalists who stood up for Press Freedom and the rights of society in general. NICE, FRANCE (SEPT 18 – 23 1978)

(PHILIP MTHIMKULU AND SUBRY GOVENDER ATTENDING THE IFJ CONFERENCE IN NICE, FRANCE IN SEPTEMBER 1978) Good afternoon Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. We bring you greetings from our fellow colleagues back home in South Africa. We consider ourselves to be in a fortunate position to be addressing you today, for who knows my colleague here, Philip Mthimkulu, and I may not be permitted to step outside South Africa again in view of the turbulent situation in our country, caused primarily by Mr John Vorster’s white apartheid government. While we are here, six of our colleagues at this very moment are languishing in prison – incarcerated without being brought to trial for any offences whatsoever.

(Juby Mayet)

(ISAAC Moroe) They are: i). Mr Willie Bokala, a reporter for the now banned World newspaper who has been in detention for more than a year; ii). Mr Jan Tugwana, a reporter for the Rand Daily Mail who has been in detention for more than a year under Section 6 of South Africa’s notorious Terrorism Act; iii). Mrs Juby Mayet, the doyen of black journalists who is being held under the country’s Internal Security Act at the Fort Prison in Johannesburg; iv). Mr Isaac Moroe, first WASA president in the city of Bloemfontein; v). Mr Bularo Diphoto, a free-lance journalist in the town of Kroonstad, near Johannesburg. He is also being held under Section 6 of the Terrorism Act; and vi). Ms Tenjiwe Mntintso, who has just been detained in terms of the country’s security laws. Another journalist, Mr Moffat Zungu, who was a reporter for the World newspaper, is one of the accused in the Pan African Congress (PAC) trial that is presently underway in the town of Bethal, near Johannesburg. He was first detained under Section 6 of the Terrorism Act.

(JOE THLOLOE - WHO WAS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UBJ) The president of the now banned Union of Black Journalists (UBJ), Mr Joe Thloloe, who was one of the first journalists to be detained after the June 1976 Soweto uprisings, was released on August 31, 1978 after being detained incommunicado for 547 days under Section 6 of the Terrorism Act. Mr Thloloe, a feature writer for the now banned World newspaper, was arrested on March 1 1977 two months after he was released from the Modder B Prison in the town of Benoni where he was held with several other journalists and black leaders under the Internal Security Act. He was at that time a senior reporter for the white-owned black magazine, Drum. The magazine owners, however, dismissed him while he was still in detention. Just before we left South Africa for this conference, Ms Juby Mayet, who is the mother of eight children, wrote to me from the Fort Prison where she is designated as prisoner number 3905178.

(JUBY MAYET AND PHILIP MTHIMKULU) This is what she had to say: “Dear Subry, August 10 has now come and gone and I’m still here. Any way I have adjusted myself to a further period of detention and I’m quite fine. Naturally the two of us who are still in detention do miss the companionship of those who were lucky enough to be released but, on the other hand, we are very happy that they were restored to their families. “The road to freedom is not a bed of roses.” Miss Thenjiwe Mntintso, a former reporter for the Daily Dispatch in the city of East London, is one of the women detainees who was released early last month after being detained for 10 months. Miss Mntintso, who is a banned person, was not charged for any offences. But she is now facing charges for breaking the terms of her banning orders. The harassment and intimidation of journalists in South Africa is nothing new but it has taken a turn for the worse after the historic but tragic Soweto uprisings in June 1976. Our colleagues, especially those in Johannesburg, faced the full brunt of the Minister of Justice, Mr James Thomas “It leaves me cold” Kruger’s ruthless members of the security police because they dared to tell the outside world the cruelties that were being perpetrated in the name of law and order in Soweto and other black townships by South Africa’s jack-boot policemen.

(DUMA NDHLOVU)

(UBJ MEMBERS OUTSIDE THE HOTEL IN WENTWORTH, DURBAN WHERE THEY HELD THEIR SECOND ANNUAL MEETING IN JULY 1977) Two months after the Soweto uprisings, nine black journalists, who played a leading role in reporting events in Soweto, were detained under the Internal Security Act, and two others were incarcerated under Section 6 of the notorious Terrorism Act. Among the very first to be arrested was Mr Joe Thloloe. The others who faced a similar fate were: i). Mr Peter Magubane (46) of the Rand Daily Mail; ii). Mr James Mathews (49) of the Muslim News in Cape Town; iii). Mr Willie Nkosi of the Rand Daily Mail; iv). Mr Jan Tugwana (26) of the Rand Daily Mail; v). Mr Willie Bokala of the World newspaper; vi). Mr Godwin Mohlomi, deputy news editor of the World newspaper; vii). Mr Z B Molefe (36), labour correspondent for the World newspaper; viii). Mr Duma Ndhlovu of the World; and ix). Mr Thoko Mbanjira, editor of the Black Review in the city of East London. Miss Thenjiwe Mntintso of the Daily Dispatch and Mr Nat Serache of the Rand Daily Mail were detained incommunicado under Section 6 of the country’s Terrorism Act. The majority of journalists were held for about four months without being tried in a court of law. They were released at the end of December 1976 but some of them were re-arrested in 1977. Mr Thloloe, for whom the IFJ had made many representations to the South African Government, was arrested on March 1 1977 and Mr Mike Mzelini, a former reporter for the Drum Magazine, was arrested at the end of March 1977. Mr Mzelini, who has just been released after being detained without trial for 14 months, was also dismissed by the Drum Magazine while he was in detention. The magazine, which caters mainly for blacks, did not even have the decency of waiting for Mr Mzelini to be released before considering his position. But subsequently after representations by WASA he was re-employed. Mr Andrew Schehisho, a free-lance reporter in Bloemfontein, the home of South Africa’s ruling Afrikaner people, was also detained during this time under one of the country’s many security laws. He came under heavy harassment at the hands of the security police. Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, the blackest day in so far as so-called press freedom is concerned was on Oct 19 last year when the Minister of Justice or is it the Minister of Injustice, Mr Jimmy Kruger, banned the only two respected newspapers for the black people, the World and Weekend World. At the same time he banned the Union of Black Journalists (UBJ) and 17 other black organisations. Mr Kruger’s ruthless security police department confiscated all our office equipment, including our printing machine and typewriters which were used to produce our own journal, Azizthula. Mr Kruger went one step further when he locked up Mr Percy Qoboza and Mr Aggrey Klaaste, editor and news editor respectively of the World; and banned for five years Mr Donald Woods, editor of the Daily Dispatch, who is now in exile. Six other journalists were also detained at this time. They were: i). Mr Willie Bokala; ii). Miss Thenjiwe Mntintso; iii). Mr Moffat Zungu; iv). Mr Jan Tugwana; v). Mr Enoch Duma of the Sunday Times; and vi). Mr A Q Sayed of the Muslim News.

(MR ENOCH DUMA) Mr Duma, who was charged under the Terrorism Act, was acquitted. But by this time, however, he was in detention for more than a year. When representations were made to the Minister of Justice for the release of the detained journalists, Mr Kruger had the temerity to announce that the detentions were not meant to intimidate the Press and that the Government had good reasons to detain the journalists. If locking up the most highly-aware journalists in South Africa is not intimidation, then I would like to know from the so-called honourable Minister of Justice “what it is”.

(OUR BRAVE JOURNALISTS WENT THE EXTRA MILE TO COVER THE PROTESTS BY SOWETO PUPILS IN JUNE 1976. HERE PUPILS ARE SEEN MARCHING IN SOWETO BUT THEY WERE MET BY ARMED POLICEMEN AND SOLDIERS. THIS PHOTO WAS TAKEN BY AN UNKNOWN CAMERA PERSON) It was during this traumatic period that the publication of the UBJ Bulletin and all the subsequent editions were banned by the honourable Minister. The banned UBJ Bulletin contained some revealing articles about the activities of the South African Police during the Soweto uprisings. Four officials - Juby Mayet, Joe Thloloe, Mike Norton; and Mabu Nkadimeng - are now facing charges for producing an “undesirable” magazine. Despite the various representations by the IFJ and other world organisations, Mr Kruger’s security police continued their harassment of journalists. In the city of Durban in November last year, the security police detained two local journalists under Section 6 of the Terrorism Act. The journalists were: i). Mr Wiseman Khuzwayo, a former reporter on the Daily News who was held for about three months; ii). Mr Quarish Patel, also of the Daily News who was held for 76 days. They were released without any charges being preferred against them. On November 30 – the day white South Africa went to the polls and re-elected Mr Vorster’s apartheid Government – 29 black journalists staged a march in the centre of Johannesburg, protesting against the banning of the UBJ and the detention of journalists. They were arrested by the police and detained for the night in a Johannesburg prison. They were all charged under South Africa’s Riotous Assemblies Act and fined R50 each. Another two journalists: i). Mr Yusuf Nazeer of the Star; and ii). Mr Boeti Eshack of the Sunday Times; were also charged under the same act for attending an open-air meeting that was called to protest against the banning of the World and 17 other organisations and the detention of journalists.

(CHARLES NQAKULA, JUBY MAYET, PHILIP MTHIMKULU, MIKE NORTON, RASHID SERIA AND SUBRY GOVENDER AT THE UBJ MEETING AT THE DURBAN WENTWORTH HOTEL IN JULY 1977) Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, we want to just refer to October 19 again and say that when the South African Government took its arbitrary action in banning the UBJ and 17 other organisations, it made sure that every top member of the UBJ was visited by the security police. Among those who were harassed were our officials in Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban. In Durban, Mr Dennis Pather and this correspondent, who worked for the Daily News, came under the scrutiny of the security police. The security police not only arrived at my house in the town of Verulam in the unearthly hour of five am and searched the house, but also visited the offices of the Daily News and searched my desk.

(NAT SERACHE)

(MR DUMA NDHLOVU) Some of our colleagues who found it impossible to continue to work in South Africa skipped the country under trying conditions. They are Mr Duma Ndhlovu, Mr Nat Serache, Mr Boy Matthews Nonyang and Mr Wiseman Khuzwayo. We are happy to report, however, that all but six journalists, who we have mentioned earlier, are no longer in detention. Mr chairman, ladies and gentlemen please pardon us if we have laboured you with all these details. Our intention in giving you all these factual details is to explode and crush for all time the myth that South Africa enjoys one of the freest Press in Africa. We want to submit today that South Africa is by no means a Christian, democratic country that it claims to be. In our view it is no better than other dictatorships that ruthlessly crush all opposition.

(MATHATHA TSEUDU)

(LESLIE XINWA OF EAST LONDON)

(MONA BADELA OF PORT ELIZABETH) In fact we contend that in view of South Africa’s oppressive actions against black journalists there is no Press Freedom at all in our country. What is Press Freedom? The Commonwealth Press Union once approved the following statement on this important topic: “Freedom of the Press is not a special privilege of newspapers, but derives from the fundamental right of every person to have full and free access to the facts in all matters that directly or indirectly concern him, and from his equal right to express and publish his opinions thereon and to hear and read the opinions of others. “In protection of these fundamental human rights it is essential that the Press should be free to gather news without obstruction or interference and free to publish the news and to comment thereon.”

(ZWELAKHE SISULU) Evaluating Press Freedom in South Africa from this statement we contend that newspapers can only be free if the environment in which it operates is free. In our South Africa the society in which we live is not free and, therefore, there cannot be a Free Press. How can there be Press Freedom in South Africa when newspapers are banned, and journalists are detained and banned for pursuing the truth and expressing the wishes of the people?

(RASHID SERIA OF CAPE TOWN WHO INITIATED THE GRASSROOTS NEWSPAPER AS PART OF THE PROGRAMME TO ESTABLISH ALTERNATIVE NEWSPAPERS) White journalists, except in a few cases, and the white Press in general do not suffer in the same degree as black journalists. But they also have to operate under trying circumstances. There is no legislation in South Africa which is aimed at restricting the Press, but there is a minefield of statutes which circumscribes the activities of newspapers directly or indirectly. Despite world condemnations of South Africa’s restrictive measures against the freedom of expression, there is little hope that Mr Vorster’s apartheid Government will allow the country’s press to operate freely. The Government’s intentions were clearly enunciated when after the banning of the World and Weekend World, the former Minister of Interior, Dr Connie Mulder, announced that his Government would not hesitate to close down other newspapers if the State was endangered or law and order threatened. He said the bannings could be construed as a warning to others not to “misuse their right to criticism”. The same Minister warned in November last year that the Press in South Africa was in a “probationary period”. Mr Vorster’s Government was to have enacted a Bill in the white Parliament early this year to control the Press but after negotiations with the white-controlled Newspaper Press Union, a special Code of Conduct was formulated to keep the Press in its place. Despite the dropping of the Bill, the newspapers are in a weaker and compromised position today. We in WASA believe that there is no need for the South African Government to interfere in the affairs of the Press. We only want to operate freely and independently subject only to the restraints of decency and the law of libel. A Free Press will be the only sure sign of public liberty in South Africa in the future. Now, Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, we would like to give you some information into the position of the so-called Black Press in South Africa. We in South Africa really do not have a single national daily or weekly newspaper that is wholly-owned and published by blacks themselves. All newspapers in South Africa, except for a few insignificant and minor ones, are owned, managed and run by the white structure. Even black newspapers such as Post which took over from the banned World newspaper, and the Ilanga in Durban, are all owned by the mighty Argus Printing and Publishing Company.

(ZWELAKHE SISULU, THAMI MAZWAI AND OTHER LEADERS OF MWASA, WHICH TOOK OVER FROM WASA) There is a vital need for a black-owned, edited and managed newspaper in our country because the present newspapers, except for the Post in a very minor way, do not in any way cater for the majority. All the major daily and weekend newspapers are directed at white readership. We in WASA resolved at our last annual meeting in the town of Verulam in July, after our conference in the city of Port Elizabeth was banned by the Pretoria authorities, that our organisation should take the lead and the initiative in trying to establish a truly black newspaper that would cater for the aspirations and the needs of the black majority. We have also decided to establish a news agency in South Africa that will supply the world with accurate news on events taking place in the troubled country of ours. At the moment whatever news items that are disseminated through the white South African Press Association (SAPA) are at most times seen through the eyes of white journalists. The news that is leaving South Africa at the moment is not in the best interests of the black majority. We aim to bring our ambitious projects into fruition by appealing to you good people to use your influence in getting foreign organisations to try to help our ventures.

(Some journalists who supported the calls for alternative newspapers) We want to as far as possible help ourselves but being the exploited class, we don’t have the necessary capital and finance to establish a newspaper and news agency. When we do realise our ambitious plans we would like the projects to be run and managed entirely by blacks. In this regard we intend to establish a training school for aspiring journalists, sub-editors and lay out personnel. If our finances allow us, we also aim to offer scholarships to outstanding journalists to study abroad. The main purpose for attempting to establish our own newspaper is to expand the news coverage of the black majority. We feel that the black people are fed with the wrong priorities at the moment. Sex, crime, rape and pillage are not going to help us gain self-reliance and freedom. We also aim to establish contact, through our news agency, with the Third World countries and to give the Western countries accurate news of the happenings in South Africa. In South Africa, in view of the racist position where the whites hold the monopoly on the economy of the country, it is inevitable that whites will own all the major newspapers in the country. And if this is the position then it goes without saying that they will automatically be appointed to all the top positions such as editors, news editors and other executive positions in a newspaper. The situation is so farcical that in one newspaper in Durban the head of the messenger’s department is also a craggy old white man. Under these circumstances there is no scope whatsoever for black journalists to be appointed to executive positions on white-owned and run newspapers, except of course newspapers such as Post and Ilanga. Even black supplements in white newspapers are also headed by white editors. These supplements are mere token extensions of a newspaper and in no way cater for the aspirations of the black majority. In view of the country’s apartheid structure, blacks are effectively kept out of top positions in white newspapers. Black reporters, who work on white newspapers, are in the main mere reporters who are employed just to gather news items on black social, sport and other affairs. However, there are a few exceptions where black reporters are allowed some scope. But in these instances too, they are merely tolerated and not encouraged in any way. Regarding our status as a trade union, I would like to stress that we do not enjoy trade union rights in South Africa because of Mr Vorster’s apartheid legislations which prohibit the recognition of black trade unions. WASA, which is now finding its feet, is soon going to ask newspaper managements to grant us negotiating rights. We are looking forward to this development and will definitely keep the IFJ and all its affiliated units informed of the attitudes of the white-owned newspapers. We believe that they will have no alternative but to recognise us.

In conclusion, Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, we would like to say that instead of silencing the opponents of apartheid, the bannings and detentions of journalists have had an opposite effect. Far from cowing to the oppression meted out to them, black journalists have taken a solid stance against the apartheid Government. The formation of WASA so soon after the banning of the UBJ offers evidence of the commitment of many black journalists who refuse to accept the enticing carrot being offered by white colleagues to work in so-called “multi-racial” organisations. At home, the crucial question is: “How can blacks work with whites when they do not enjoy both rights and privileges enjoyed by the white minority? It is in the closing of the ranks of black people that we see meaningful change.” The picture we have painted of our country may be a gloomy one. But that is the truth. However, when all hope of peaceful change is fast receding and when all hope of a new deal for all our people is now only a dream, we will still continue to hope. Like someone once said: “It is only for those without hope that we have hope.” We in South Africa believe that all South Africans must enjoy full rights, irrespective of race, colour or ethnicity. Therefore, at this stage in the country, where there is a white minority government, progressive people should work towards creating a future society free of racism and minority domination and minority rule. Written in Durban on the lst day of September 1978 ENDS - SUBRYGOVENDER@GMAIL.COM