Testimony by Moosa Muhammed Moolla before the Ad Hoc Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights, Dar es Salaam, 22 June 1967

[Note: The questions of the members of the Working Group are briefly indicated in italics. The members were: Ibrahima Boye, Procureur-general, Senegal, Chairman; Felix Ermacora, Professor of Public Law, University of Vienna, Austria; Branimir Jankovic, Rector of the University of Nis, Yugoslavia; Luis Marchand Stens, Professor of International Law, Peru; and Waldo Waldron-Ramsey, Barrister, representing Tanzania.]

I am a journalist.

Briefly, I would like to state that it will be an honour for me to give evidence to this Working Group and I hope that whatever evidence I give will help in some way to relieve the position of South African political prisoners and that it will lead eventually to their release.

I have been arrested on at least five or six occasions: the first being in 1952 and the last in 1963. The periods of imprisonment ranged from two weeks to six months.

In 1956 I was arrested, together with 156 other Africans, including Chief Luthuli, Nelson Mandela and Walter Sisulu, on allegations of high treason. I was released eventually when the prosecution failed in its case and the accused were discharged in 1961, after four and a half years.

In 1963, I was one of the fourteen detainees arrested on 10 May in South Africa. I was kept in indefinite detention for ninety days, released and re-arrested for a second spell of ninety days. But I was fortunate enough to escape with the previous petitioner2 and two other colleagues of mine.

I would like to preface my brief story by stating that I am one of the fortunate ones - as far as political prisoners are concerned - because I have not been physically tortured. But I have undergone mental torture - ninety days` detention.

On 10 May 1963, in the evening, I was arrested by about four Special Branch members of the South African police and taken to Marshall Square, where I was warned that I was a victim of the new law that came into being, namely the ninety-day detention act.

I was told that I would be held incommunicado, that I would not have the right of habeas corpus, that no lawyers would be able to see me and that I would have no visits from friends or family.

I was immediately told that unless and until I answered questions to the satisfaction of the South African police, I would be kept indefinitely and I was threatened that, if I did not answer questions, physical force would be used on me.

Fortunately, presumably since I was one of the first detainees and publicity was given to my case, at that stage violence was not used on me.

Now, let me give you some ideas as to detention in a South African prison.

From the very moment of my arrest, the Special Branch member in charge - if I remember, I believe he was a warrant officer, but his name was Vivires (?) - asked me a question on the way to the police station as to where a friend of mine by the name of Ahmed Kathrada was. Ahmed Kathrada went into hiding as the result of a house arrest order placed on him and the police were looking for him. They thought that I knew his whereabouts.

Of course, I refused to answer the question and I was told `You will talk in due course`. This was the beginning of the process of mental torture - not only for me but for hundreds of other South African prisoners as well.

The evening of my arrest I was taken to Marshall Square - which is a police station in Johannesburg. I was locked into a cell which was about eight feet by eight feet, given a few vermin-infested blankets - this was my bedding - and the warders were informed that I was not allowed to have any communication with any other prisoner whatsoever.

A day or two later a magistrate came to see me; it was stipulated in the Act that detainees were allowed visits by magistrates to whom they could complain and make any requests. I shall, in due course, show the fallacy and the farce of the so-called `magistrate`s visits`.

A few days after my detention, the Special Branch visited me and asked me to make a confession. They promised to release me if I made a statement to their satisfaction. Of course, I refused to do this. I believe that I was detained because at the time I was a full-time organizer of the Transvaal Indian Congress which was a constituent body of the South African Indian Congress and a member of the Congress Alliance.

Prior to my arrest, some sabotage acts had already taken place in South Africa and one of the persons arrested was the previous petitioner - Mr. Abdulhia Jassat.

The Special Branch made a point of visiting me at least once a week and on many occasions they were there just for a few minutes asking me whether I had any statement to make and, if I replied in the negative, they immediately left.

This, I later realized, was part of the process for destroying the detainee mentally. On each occasion they told me `If you do not answer any questions, you will be kept here this side of eternity`, because the law stipulated that a detainee could be kept for successive periods of ninety-day detention.

I was kept in a cell which was about ten feet by twelve feet, given a mattress - a very thin one, about four inches deep - and kept twenty-four hours of the day in solitary confinement. I was allowed half an hour in the morning and half an hour in the afternoon for exercises. This, of course, was only allowed to me after about two weeks or so. I was allowed no reading matter, no writing materiel, no newspapers, no books, nothing whatsoever.

For a few weeks after my detention, I was allowed food from home but, as soon as members of my family and other friends demonstrated outside the police station demanding my release, as a reprisal for this action food was withdrawn.

When I was at Marshall Square, the first time I was together with a colleague of mine by the name of Wolfie Kodesh, who is in London at the moment. But, of course, he was kept separately from myself and later other detainees were brought to Marshall Square. They were all kept in solitary confinement.

I managed during periods when I was allowed to go to the toilet to see some of them and to meet them for a few minutes. On one such occasion, I managed to meet the Director of the World Campaign for the Release of Political Prisoners in South Africa, Mr. Dennis Brutus, who wasarrested for attending a meeting in defiance of a banning order and was brought to Marshall Square for a few days.

I realized my position, because I knew what happened to other political prisoners. The day before my arrest I was at court where Abdulhia Jassat, Reggie Vandeyar, Indris Naidoo, Shirish Nanabhai and Laloo Chiba were appearing for sabotage and I heard details of the torture that was inflicted on them.

Accordingly, when meeting Brutus I informed him that, in the event of torture being inflicted on me, I would communicate with my family by not sending my soiled clothing home. This should be an indication that torture has begun on me, and that I would go on a hunger strike.

Now, let me give you some idea as to the days of detention. There was no question of awaking at a specified time. You could sleep the whole day; you could walk around the cell the whole day; you could do anything you liked, providing, of course, you did not while away your time with more fruitful matters such as reading, etc.

The magistrate`s visits normally lasted about five or ten minutes every Wednesday and he asked you what were your complaints, what were your requests. On each occasion he was informed that we needed books and reading matter and that we wanted to know why we were being detained, because no charge was made against us. He made notes and said he would convey them to the relevant authorities, but during the following week he asked us again what our complaints were.

Well, the position was repeated, week in and week out. Finally, I asked him what was the purpose of our complaints and what was the purpose of us making requests when he was helpless. And the magistrate - I remember his name, Mr. Harris - at the time said that he himself was unable to do anything because all our requests went to the Special Branch and the Special Branch said they would look into the matter.

Two or three members of the Special Branch had visited me. I knew them already because on a number of occasions they had raided our offices and also my home and I had some dealings with them in the sense that I was arrested on various charges before that. They told me that, if I made a clear breast of things, I would be released immediately; if not, the process of detention would continue. And I was told that if I had any idea that I would be released in Johannesburg, for instance, I should forget about it, because I would be taken out of town to a remote police station or prison where I would be released and, accordingly, re-arrested. This, in fact, happened.

Now, I started by saying that I would try to show how ninety-days` detention affects the mind and this torture, though not physical, has broken many people in South Africa. Psychologists have discovered through practical examples that solitary confinement for a certain number of days affects people`s minds. I would like to show here too that the mental torture inflicted on people is combined with physical torture, as was inflicted upon a friend of mine - Babla Saloojee - who is dead now and upon another colleague of mine, whom I don`t know but who was found hanging in his cell, according to the reports of the police. His name was Looksmart Solwandle. This happened, of course, subsequent to my escape from South Africa.

For instance, Babla Saloojee, whom I have known for at least eighteen years, never displayed any suicidal tendencies. He was a hard-working young man and when I heard - in 1964 - that he had committed suicide, this was rather difficult for me to believe.

Knowing conditions in South African prisons and knowing what the South African Special Branch are able to do, I came to the conclusion that Babla Saloojee either committed suicide - if, indeed, he did commit suicide - because of the extreme pressure placed on him, or did not commit suicide but was killed by the police. His body was thrown out of the window and, as a cover-up story, it was stated that the man committed suicide.

Now, this happens in South Africa. It has happened on a number of occasions to many people, who were taken and shot, and the excuse was that they attempted to escape, for instance. It is the old story that was used by the Nazis and which the South African Government and most of the [inaudible].

You have said that, according to the South African Government, people have committed suicide. For instance, Babla Saloojee, Looksmart Solwandle - and there was another detainee - I don`t remember his name now, but I think it was Sele (?) or something like that.

This is a shocking indictment of the South African way of life, especially prison conditions. We must ask ourselves why people resort - in the final analysis - to suicide. Conditions must be of such a nature that good people, fine people, some of the finest sons and daughters of the country have been completely made into human wrecks. People who were healthy and strong suddenly decide after a short spell of time now to suddenly end their lives. I myself did not have any suicidal ideas; I did not contemplate suicide at all. But other detainees, whom I met after my escape and who arrived in Dar es Salaam subsequently, told me that they were in a very, very difficult position and seriously contemplated suicide.

At Marshall Square, as I said earlier, I managed to make contact with some other detainees. One of them, who is serving a fifteen-year gaol sentence at the moment, is Andrew Mashaba. He told me - and I saw him once - the way he was beaten up in order to confess. I was together with the former petitioners Abdulhia Jassat and Laloo Chiba who occupied cells adjoining mine. Now in the case of Jassat, I have known him since 1948, I know his family and I know that he did not suffer from any serious illness at all, and that he did not suffer from epilepsy or any manner of fits whatsoever. After being with him for nearly sixteen years, the first time I realized that he had fits was when he came to Dar es Salaam. I assume this was a result of the torture and the electrodes applied, which affected his mental faculties and did some serious damage to the brain.

As a result of the exposures of torture - both internationally and locally - the South African Government has changed its methods of applying torture. For instance, in recent times they have used what is known as the `statue` method, in which detainees are forced to stand for sixteen or seventeen hours at a time without food or sleep, so as to induce them to speak. Of course, you realize that this method leaves no marks whatsoever. One friend of mine who is also serving a gaol sentence of five years at the moment - Mr. Ivan Schermbrucker - smuggled a letter out to his wife, in which he said that he was at the end of his tether and could not take it any longer.

But at the early stages - in fact, as recently as 1964-65 - physical torture was still extensively being used. For instance, another friend of mine, who is at the moment living in London - Mr. Paul Joseph - and a colleague of mine - Mac Maharaj - who is serving an eighteen-year gaol sentence at Robben Island, were very severely physically tortured. Both of them testified that their testicles were squeezed in order to make them confess.

During my first term of imprisonment, for instance, in 1952 during the defiance campaign, although it was just for a mere fourteen days, I saw at the time the ill-treatment - at that time, we were quite numerous - not of political prisoners but of the ordinary prisoners in gaol. Subsequently, while awaiting trial in 1956, I also saw acts of brutality being committed against prisoners.

On my eighty-ninth day of detention,, I was told in the morning that I should pack my bags, because I was to be released. I accordingly packed my suitcase and in the afternoon the sergeant in charge told me to accompany him. Of course, I was told not to take my bags along. At about half past four or five in the afternoon, I was taken to a police station known as Mondeor which is about ten miles from Johannesburg, and kept at the police station.

The following morning, at about 11 o`clock, I was asked to sign a document which stated that I was being released and I was released accordingly. Of course, I had no money on me and I did not know how to contact people at all. It was difficult to make a phone call. I left the police station and must have walked for about 150 to 200 yards, when a Special Branch car which followed me picked me up and brought me back to Marshall Square in my old cell. Well, I was back amongst friends, I should say, again.

That same night the Special Branch visited me and told me that from now on they would tolerate no nonsense and that, if we did not answer questions, they would be forced to use other means. By ‘other means’ I understood physical violence. Four or five days after my second detention, together, with Abdulhia Jassat and two other detainees - Arthur Goldreich and H. Wolpe - we managed to escape and made our way to Dar es Salaam. I was in the country after my escape for at least six weeks and during that time a very extensive search was being conducted for our capture. The police, of course, immediately arrested my wife, who was pregnant at the time and later the wives of both Arthur Goldreich and H. Wolpe as well. The idea was a form of reprisal designed to ascertain whether they knew our whereabouts.

Soon after that I was in Dar es Salaam and that is the end of my story as far as detention is concerned. But I would just like to point out at this stage the attitude of the courts to the question of torture as far as South African political prisoners are concerned.

It is particularly sanctioned by law that the hands of both the judges and the magistrates are tied, that whenever questions of torture - especially concerning political prisoners - are raised in the courts, the excuse of magistrates and judges is simply that it does not fall within their jurisdiction, that it is not relevant to the case and that therefore they cannot do anything about it. This, of course, gives the upper hand to the Special Branch in order to continue with their methods of torture.

For instance, ninety-day detention was withdrawn and replaced by 180-day detention. Recently a new bill has been passed known as the Terrorism Act, under which there is indefinite detention. The maximum sentence is death and the minimum sentence is five years. for anyone aiding and abetting so-called `saboteurs or terrorists`.

We know from actual experience that, according to South African terminology, any persons opposed to nationalist tyranny, opposed to the accepted views of the Nationalist Party and to the fascist regime, are automatically hounded and branded as communists, saboteurs and what have you.

`We have seen how religious personalities, trade unionists, pacifists, Quakers, people from every walk of life who dare speak up and who dare oppose the South African way of life, are branded as enemies of the State and accordingly meted out with punishment which in South Africa even the most hardened criminals do not obtain.

Mr. ERMACORA asked who had invited the witness to address the Working Group.

I received a letter from the United Nations Committee, the Special Committee.

The CHAIRMAN said he himself had invited the witness to come and make a deposition.

Mr. JANKOVIC asked why the witness` wife had been arrested.

She was arrested after I escaped in order to find out from her where I was.

The CHAIRMAN asked whether the arrest was a form of reprisal.

Yes, I presume it was a form of reprisal, because my wife was not politically involved at all, and I take it that it was a form of reprisal.

The CHAIRMAN asked how long she had been under arrest.

She was kept, I think, about a day or two. I received a letter from her subsequently in which she said that they threatened her, they took her to the Special Branch headquarters and, I think, about ten or fifteen policemen surrounded her asking her questions.

Mr. MARCHAND STENS asked whether the witness had detected any pattern of mental torture. He wondered, for example, whether methods had been used to keep him awake.

At that stage no efforts were made to keep me awake, but the mere fact that I did not know for what purpose I was detained and that I had no idea as to whether I would be kept without being tortured for a long period was enough to keep me awake and cause anxiety.

Mr. MARCHAND STENS asked whether the witness had been allowed to keep any track of time, either by a watch or by a calendar.

In fact, my watch was taken away and when I asked for it they told me, `You don`t need a watch in jail`.

Mr. MARCHAND STENS asked the witness whether he had been able to contact an attorney or to take any remedies under law.

Do I understand the question to be whether I was allowed to contact any attorney inside or outside gaol? There would be very few attorneys inside gaol, I think. But, outside gaol - I was held incommunicado. You had no contact whatsoever with the outside world, absolutely no contact, with your attorney, with your family, with your friends; nobody whatsoever. The only people with whom you had contact werethe magistrate, the warders and the Special Branch.

The CHAIRMAN asked whether the witness had been held under the ninety-days act.

Yes.

The CHAIRMAN noted that those held under that act were not allowed to contact attorneys.

Mr. MARCHAND STENS said that under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights all persons were entitled to invoke certain legal remedies on their behalf. He noted that the witness had been given blankets that were vermin-infested, and asked whether prison conditions were equally bad in other respects.

Well, in all fairness I should state that, after I had been moved from one cell to another in the final cell in which I was placed the blankets were comparatively clean.

As far as sanitary conditions are concerned, Marshall Square has a flushing system of toilets, so that was also quite clean.

The food, of course, in South Africa - even in gaols - is divided according to the categories, according to the different nationalities. For instance, white prisoners receive better food, Asiatic and Coloured prisoners are a little bit worse off and African prisoners receive the worst food. For instance, I know some of the African detainees were receiving hot porridge three times a day - morning, afternoon and evening -- and the food for non-whites is very unwholesome and, shall we say, not appetizing at all.

I would like to mention my detention following the Sharpeville massacre. I was kept for six months in the Pretoria Central Prison and there conditions were much worse. Five of us were kept in a very small cell and at night, once the cell was closed, we were given a small bucket which was used as toilet facilities, and our drinking water was kept next to it.

Mr. WALDRON-RAMSEY asked the witness whether the attitude of the South African authorities towards political activists had changed between 1952 and the early sixties.

I will try to answer the question in the following manner. The difference between 1952 and the sixties is as follows:

In 1952 the African National Congress, together with its ally, the South African Indian Congress, embarked on the campaign of defiance, known as the Campaign of Defiance against Unjust Laws, and it was an open act of civil disobedience in which over 8,500 people took part and were carted off to prisons. At that time the laws were not so stringent. For instance, if a man defied the law, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and was released; he was charged, he appeared before a court and, accordingly, was either sentenced or discharged. But in the sixties, that is, after Sharpeville, the African National Congress was outlawed and the whole political situation changed, so much so that whereas in the fifties there was what was known as due process of law, in the sixties this ceased to be. They enacted what was known as the General Law Amendment Act, which is popularly known as the Sabotage Act. Under the Sabotage Act, people could be arrested without a magistrate`s warrant and could be kept for twelve days without being brought before a court and this was subsequently increased to ninety days.

As I told you yesterday, the ninety-day law stipulates that any person whom the South African Government or the Special Branch suspects of having information could be arrested without a warrant and could be kept in indefinite detention for as long as the Government feels it necessary.

Basically, that has been the difference: whereas at one stage there was due process of law, at a later stage that has been completely degraded.

In 1956, I was arrested for high treason and together with my colleagues - 155 other South Africans - was brought before the court and charges were laid against us. Eventually, after four and a half years, we were discharged; but we appeared and charges were laid against us. In 1963, however, when the ninety-day detention law came into being, over 1,000 or nearly 1,000 South Africans of all shades and colours of opinion were arrested, were detained, without any charge being laid against them. And out of that 1,000 or so, charges were preferred against about 240; the rest were released after whatever period of detention they were kept for.

Mr. WALDRON-RAMSEY said that in most civilized countries, even when political activists were detained in the interests of national security, the authorities did not harass and ill-treat them. He asked whether the South African authorities` treatment of political figures such as Chief Luthuli, Nelson Mandela, and Babla Saloojee was in accordance with civilized standards.

I would say that civilized standards appear to be an alien term to the South African regime in so far as all political prisoners are concerned. And when you take the category of people like Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Chief Luthuli, it even becomes worse, because somehow or another in South Africa people, especially Africans who have acquired a certain standard of education, are regarded and held with contempt. For example, take the position of Chief Luthuli, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, one of the most outstanding sons of the continent: today he is hounded and has been banned, has been confined to an area known as the Groutville Mission, which is about fifty miles from Durban. Now Chief Luthuli, in 1954, suffered a very severe stroke - he was banned at the time - and a lot of appeals were made that he should be allowed to go to the hospital for treatment; this was refused but eventually, to put public opinion at rest, he was allowed to receive medical treatment.

Now we see in the papers that Chief Luthuli will be going blind in one eye - I think it is the left eye and this is a direct result of the stroke he suffered in 1954. Immediately he felt the pain in the eye, he applied to the Government for permission to be treated at the Durban McCord Hospital. His letter was not even acknowledged. Finally, the pain became unbearable and he had to make another application. And this time, which I think was two or three months hence, his permission was granted. And the doctors at the Zulu McCord Hospital said that the chance of him going completely blind was very possible, because the left eye is practically useless and it has already affected the other eye.

I can speak from experience because, during the state of emergency in Pretoria in 1960, I have seen how the ordinary people, the ordinary warders, and the colonels and the senior officers as well, treated people like Mandela, Sisulu, Luthuli and others. They made it a policy to insult them to make life as unbearable as possible, and to let the Africans feel - especially when the African has acquired a certain standard of education or is a man of high standing - that his position in life is that of shall I say, a hewer of wood and a drawer of water.

Duma Nokwe, the Secretary-General of the African National Congress, for instance, was assaulted by the police. This was some years ago. There were civil proceedings and, if my memory serves me well, I think he was awarded damages, but that was, of course, in the fifties.

And similarly Mandela, during the Rivonia trial, when he was sentenced to life imprisonment, made repeated statements in court that he was being ill-treated. For instance, most of the accused in the Rivonia trial were kept incommunicado, although they were charged for very long terms, and two of the other prisoners, Elias Matsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni, were very severely beaten up and tortured.

Mr. WALDRON-RAMSEY asked whether the South African authorities had used the Sharpeville incident as an excuse for imprisoning political leaders, with a view to destroying the leadership of the political movements.

Sharpeville, as you remember, took place on 21 March 1960, and thousands of people gathered, in a peaceful manner, to protest against what is known as the obnoxious pass system and, without any warning, or with a few seconds of warning given to the people to disperse, the police opened fire on peaceful demonstrators, and within a minute or two sixty-nine people were killed in cold blood, and over 100 injured.

Now, as a result of Sharpeville the whole political situation in South Africa changed to the worse. The South African Government, of course, took into account what was happening in the African continent and elsewhere and what was known popularly as the winds of change that had taken place, and it became jittery. They decided at that stage, or subsequently, that they must do everything in their power to destroy the liberation movement and, as a first act - I think it was on 30 April - the African National Congress (ANC) and the Pan-Africanist Congress were outlawed. A state of emergency was declared and nearly 8,000 to 10,000 people were detained.

After Sharpeville, when the emergency was lifted in 1960 - I think it was about August or so - of course, things returned to a sort of calm on the surface, but the whole position did not remain the same as it was before 1960. The Government and the present Prime Minister, who was then the Minister of Justice, Mr. Vorster, introduced what is known as the General Law Amendment Act, popularly known as the Sabotage Act, and the detention clause. Its basic purpose was to destroy any form of opposition and any form of resistance by the people, especially by the non-white political organizations. Later on, of course, the sister body of the Congress Alliance, the South African Congress of Democrats, which is a European body, was also outlawed.

But I should say quite emphatically that the idea was, and still is, to annihilate any form of resistance to nationalist tyranny. The laws subsequently have become harsher: first it was the twelve-day detention law; this was increased to ninety days, and more recently to 180 days; the General Law Amendment Act has been further amended; and there is now a new law known as the Terrorism Act in which the minimum sentence is five years and the maximum sentence is death. So the pattern has been the same all the time.

Mr. WALDRON-RAMSEY said that earlier witnesses had described the Republic of South Africa as one vast prison. Did the witness agree with that description?

I would most emphatically say that South Africa is a vast prison-house or a vast concentration camp. For instance, let me give an example of how people are forced to reside in the country. The question of passport is not a right, but a privilege. I, as a South African Indian, could not move from one province to another province without obtaining a special permit. I was born in the Transvaal; I could not go to the Cape or to the Free State. In fact, South Africans of Indian descent are not allowed to stay in the Free State at all. Africans cannot move from one area to another area without a special permit; there is influx control. Any African leaving a rural area and coming to an urban area must report to the superintendent within seventy-two hours or must leave the urban area in seventy-two hours, failing which he is immediately arrested and sentenced. Finally, sentence means that they are sent to farm colonies to work for the white farmers under extremely difficult conditions, where exploitation is rife.

Well, you have heard evidence as far as South Africa is concerned on the question of South Africa being a vast prison-house. Let us take the question of freedom of speech; it is non-existent. Freedom of assembly is non-existent. There is fear, there is the position where you fear your neighbour; you are afraid to speak to a companion for fear of informers. For instance, in my case, when I was detained, people who were my good friends and companions made a point of not visiting my family at all for fear of becoming the next victim. So the description is fairly accurate when you say that South Africa is a vast concentration camp, or a vast prison-house.

Mr. WALDRON-RAMSEY asked what effect international action was likely to have on conditions in South African prisons and on the general political situation.

I would say that international seminars and commissions most certainly have an effect on the South African regime, and they go a long way in helping and ameliorating the conditions of South African political prisoners. If there is one thing that the South African authorities would really like, that is the complete absence of any form of discussion on the aspect of prison conditions, and there is no doubt that since prison conditions have been exposed both locally and internationally, the authorities have to some extent bettered the position of our political prisoners at home. But much more needs to be done. Their conditions, from reports, have sort of changed, but to a very small extent; essentially, the question of torture, etc., still remains.

The CHAIRMAN reminded members of the Working Group that they had been instructed to investigate charges of ill-treatment and torture of persons held in South African prisons, and he asked them to direct their questions to that subject. The general political situation in South Africa was being investigated by another United Nations body.

He asked how the witness knew that Chief Luthuli had suffered a stroke and had been refused medical treatment.

Well, Chief Luthuli suffered a stroke in 1954 and that was extensively published in the South African papers, because his life was in danger. That was common knowledge in South Africa.

As far as his eye is concerned, recently, information concerning the operation and the effect has been ascertained from reports in the South African Press and also a letter has been written by Chief Luthuli`s wife, I think, to our office in London, either to the London committee or to the World Campaign for the Release of South African Prisoners, and also South African papers had extensive reports recently on Chief Luthuli`s condition. Also the United Nations Office based in Dar es Salaam is in contact with people at home and receives regular communication, and this has been verified.

The CHAIRMAN thanked the witness for his testimony.

United Nations