Published date
Related Collections from the Archive
The triumphs of the anti-communist crusaders have been made possible only by the tacit support, cowardice and confusion of large sections of people who, at heart, may have had a profound love for liberty, but lacked the courage and vision to resist reaction.
In 1950, when C. R. Swart, Nationalist Minister of Justice, introduced the Suppression of Communism Act (Act 44 of 1950), South Africa was enjoying a tranquility which was disturbed only ' the Nationalists. Economically, the country was passing through a period of prosperity. The relationship between employers and workers was good and there were few strikes. The ten million oppressed non-Europeans were demanding their rights, but they were doing so peacefully, without signs of violence or revolution. The only Communist M.P., Mr. Sam Kahn, who had been elected with an overwhelming majority by the Africans of the Western Cape, behaved with such dignity and brilliance that even the Nationalists developed a sneaking regard for him and packed the House whenÂever he spoke. To secure public support for his monstrous Bill, Swart concocted a fantastic story of communist plots to poison the wells of South Africa.
The Act gave Swart and his police dictatorial power, not only over communists, but also over all citizens. The Communist Party was outlawed and the teaching of communism was made a criminal offence, punishable by ten years' imprisonment with hard labour. The definition of "communism" in the Act was so wide and so vague that to demand for any change in the social structure of the country whatsoever became a criminal offence. Indeed, several well-known anti-communists were subsequently convicted of spreadÂing communism, due to the all-embracing nature of the definition.
The Minister assigned to himself autocratic powers to ban meetings and prohibit anyone from attending any gathering whatÂsoever. "Gathering" was defined as "any number of people". Hence, any person who was served with this order, prohibiting him from attending gatherings, was liable to three years' imprisonment with hard labour if he so much as stood in a queue or sat down to dinner with his family. The Minister could also suppress newspapers and banish citizens from any area in South Africa. Victims had no protection whatever and could be condemned without trial or hearing. The courts could not intervene. Facts, truth and evidence were to be completely ignored. The Minister's opinion was final, and so was his judgment.
The attitude of the United Party, the major opposition in Parliament, to this and nearly all other tyrannical laws passed by the Nationalist Government, was foolish and contemptible. Instead of rallying the people of South Africa in a struggle against fascist dictatorship, the leaders of the United Party have invariably contented themselves with moving piffling amendments. They readily supported Swart's concentration camp policy, but wanted hot and cold water installed and, when Swart refused to provide these amenities, the United Party accepted concentration camps all the same.
The main purpose of the Suppression of Communism Act, a typical Nazi measure, was to intimidate opponents of the Nationalist Party. It came into operation on the 26th June 1950. On the 20th September 1950, I received this letter:
" Sir,
Having been directed by the Honourable the Minister t»f Justice in terms of Section 4 (10) of Act 44 of 1950, you are hereby afforded a reasonable opportunity in terms of the proviso of the above-mentioned section, to show why your name should not be included in a list of persons who are or have been office bearers, officers, members or active supporters of the Communist Party of South Africa, which has been declared an unlawful organisation by Section 2 (1) of Act 44 of 1950.
Should you desire such reasonable opportunity you are requested to submit in writing such representations, as you desire to make to reach me at the above address on or before The 3rd October 1950?
Evidence has been placed before me to show that you were a member and active supporter of the Communist Party of South Africa.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) J . de V. Louw,
Liquidator: Act 44 of 1950."
Once a person is listed, the Minister may prescribe a standard of conduct for him, remove him from his position and prohibit him from holding any public office or becoming a Member of Parliament or of the Provincial Council.
I sent a lengthy reply, from which I quote the following extracts:
"Your Minister of Justice treats liberty and justice with contempt and the people of South Africa today are denied even those rights which the people of Europe exacted from their tyrant kings in the Middle Ages.
"Obviously your magnanimous offer of a reasonable opportunity to show why my name should not be included in your list is either a mockery or you do not know the meaning of the term 'reasonable opportunity'. I have not the faintest idea of what crime I am supposed to have committed, or of the evidence which has been placed before you in support of any allegation against me. Yes, I was a member of the Communist Party until the 3rd September 1931, when I was expelled from that party, and I have never rejoined it. I quote below the Resolution of my expulsion published in Umsebenzi, the official organ of the one-time Communist Party of South Africa dated 4th September1931:
"'The Fight Against the Right Danger-Expulsions from the Party-Resolutions of Political Bureau of C.P.S.A.- Comrade E. S. Sacks.
Comrade E. S. Sachs has during recent months shown a steady drift away from all Party activities and a growing sabotage of all revolutionary work in the trade unions, whilst increasing opportunism has characterised his actions. The failure to popularise the platform of the African May Day Committee by holding back the letters and further by a recommendation to the members of the Garment Workers' Union not to associate with the African May Day Committee, nor the United May Day Committee, but to go on a picnic instead of demonstrating on the streets; the failure to participate with the members of the Union, who in spite of such recomÂmendation demonstrated under the leadership of the Party whilst Comrade Sachs went to Germiston; the failure to attend any Party demonstrations during recent months, all these actions are manifestations of deviation from the Party line. The general work of Comrade Sachs revealed by the complete failure to conduct any activity against the reformist line of the Garment Workers' Union, the failure to organise any resistance to the class-collaboration legislation, the failure to lead action against the white chauvinism of members of the Garment Workers' Union, and recently the opportunistic action whereby Comrade Sachs threatened to resign his union position (without reference to the Party) unless his wages were substantially increased, all of these activities reveal a steady and persistent drift away from the line of the Party which have led to the compromising of the Party amongst the workers. These activities demand that the Party take drastic disciplinary action against Comrade Sachs.'
"The Suppression of Mr. Swart ostensibly as a measure to combat Communism presents Communism Act, but it is in fact designed to wipe out all human liberties, to destroy the free trade unions, to intimidate and terrorise all opponents of the Nationalist Party, and to inflict arbitrary punishment upon those who stand for a truly democratic South Africa. On the basis of all the facts and information at my disposal, I must come to the conclusion that the ultimate object of listing me is not to combat Communism, but to remove me, and no doubt others, from the leadership of the Garment Workers' Union, so that this proud, militant organisation may become a political football of the Nationalist Party, repeating he tragic story of the Mine Workers' Union.
"I submit that in law you are not entitled to include my lame in the list referred to in your letter. If you intend to include my name in the list referred to in your letter, please advise me immediately so that I can institute legal proceedings o declare the inclusion of my name in the list as being unlawful and beyond your powers."
Swart, in his great hurry to rush the Act through Parliament, had not spread his net wide enough. Possibly he found it expedient to destroy individual liberty in stages. Whatever the reason, the definition of "communist" in the Act did not include ex-communists, to which category I belonged. The following year, however. Swart introduced the Suppression of Communism Amendment Act, Act 50 51, which stated:
"Communist" means a person who professes or has at any time before or after the commencement of this Act professed to be a communist or who, after having been given a reasonable opportunity of making such representations as he may consider necessary, is deemed by the Governor-General or, in the case of an inhabitant of the territory of South-West Africa, by the Administrator of the said territory, to be a communist on the ground that he is advocating, advising, defending or encouraging or has at any time before or after the commencement of this Act, whether within or outside the Union, advocated, advised, defended or encouraged the achieveÂment of any of the objects of communism or any act or omission which is calculated to further the achievement of any such object, or that he has at any time before or after the commencement of this Act been a member or active supporter of any organisation outside the Union which professed, by its name or otherwise, to be an organisation for propagating the principles or promoting the spread of communism, or whose purpose or one of whose purposes was to propagate the principles or promote the spread of communism, or which engaged in activities which were calculated to further the achievement of any of the objects of communism.
By giving himself power to punish people for acts which had perfectly lawful at the time they were done, Swart not only committed an outrage upon the Rule of Law, hut had also proved conclusively the dishonesty of his party and its aims. Under the pretext of suppressing communism, the Nationalist Party was out to remove the last trace of individual liberty.
Early in 1950, Dr. Albert Hertzog, a Nationalist Member of Parliament and leader of the Reformers, announced in a press statement the formation of The Workers' Press and Publishing Company Limited, with himself as chairman. The company intended to publish three workers' weekly newspapers, the Mine Worker, the Garment Worker and the Building Worker. The object of the publications would be to combat racial equality and communism in the trade unions and to capture the trade unions for Afrikanerdom.
The first numbers appeared on the 10th February 1950, and in subsequent issues, Piet Huyser, the very progressive national organiser of the Building Workers' Union, Anna Scheepers, president of the Garment Workers' Union, and myself, were slandered and vilified with a fury and recklessness surpassing anything we had previously experienced. After some six issues had appeared, the three of us instituted actions for defamation against the company and the printers, the Voortrekkerpers. The printers settled out of court and paid each of us £300 and costs. The company paid £500 to Anna Scheepers, but decided to defend the action by Huyser and myself. Even after we issued summonses, they still continued to publish defamatory articles.
My case was heard before Mr. Justice Clayden, who gave judgment on the 30th May 1951, awarding me £3,200 damages, less the £300 which I had already received, and costs. Huyser was awarded £1,850 damages and costs by Mr. Justice Ramsbottom.
The company had been registered with a nominal capital of £ 7, but received many thousands of pounds from the Mineworkers' Union and from advertising. It did not honour the judgment and I applied to the Supreme Court for a liquidation order. My application was granted, the company was put out of business, and Albert Hertzog's venture came to an end.
In July 1951, I issued a further summons against the printers for continuing to print defamatory matter after they had paid me £300. When the case opened in the Supreme Court on the 25th March 1952, my counsel announced that a settlement had been reached.
The defendants agreed to pay me the sum of £1,000 through their attorneys, as well as the taxed costs of the action up to date of trial, including counsel's fees on trial.
By now the Nationalists had to acknowledge that I could not be removed from the secretaryship of the Garment Workers' Union
By slander, vilification, physical violence or terror tactics. They had to find other methods. ...
On Monday, the 19th May, 1952, at five p.m. I returned from an important meeting of the national executive committee of the South African Trades and Labour Council to attend the usual weekly meeting of the central executive committee of the union at the union's head office. I found two detectives waiting for me. They handed me the two following orders, signed by Mr. C. R. Swart, Minister of Justice:
NUMBER I
UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA
Office of the Minister of Justice,
Palace of Justice,
Pretoria.
To Mr. Emil Solomon Sachs,
50, Donegal Avenue,
Greenside, Johannesburg.
THE SUPPRESSION OF COMMUNISM ACT NO. 44 OF 1950 AS AMENDED
WHEREAS YOUR NAME APPEARS ON THE LIST IN THE CUSTODY OF THE OFFICE REFERRED TO IN SECTION EIGHT, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT:
UNDER THE POWERS VESTED IN ME BY SECTION 5 OF THE SUPPRESSION OF COMMUNISM ACT (ACT NO. 44 OF 1950 AS AMENDED), YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED:
(a) To resign within a period of 30 days from date hereof as an office-bearer, officer or member of the following organisation and not again to become an office-bearer, officer or member thereof and not to take part in its activities:
THE GARMENT WORKERS' UNION
(b) Not to become an office-bearer, officer or member and not to take part in the activities of the organisations called
CIVIL RIGHTS LEAGUE
SOUTH AFRICAN PEACE MOVEMENT
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS COMMITTEE.
Given under my hand at Cape Town this 8th day of May, 1952,
(Signed ) C. R. Swart,
MINISTER OF JUSTICE.
-NUMBER II
THE SUPPRESSION OF COMMUNISM ACT NO. 44 OF 1950 AS AMENDED
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT:
1. Under the powers vested in me by section 9 of the Suppression of Communism Act (Act No. 44 of 1950 as amended), you are hereby prohibited from attending any gathering whatever within the Union of South Africa and the Territory of South-West Africa for a period of two years from date hereof other than gatherings of a bona fide religious, recreational or social nature.
2. Under the powers vested in me by section 10 of the Act and after thirty days from date hereof you are hereby prohibited for a period of two years from being within any province in the Union of South Africa or the Territory of South-West Africa other than the province of the Transvaal.
Given under my hand at Cape Town this 8th day of May 1952. (Signed) C. R. Swart,
MINISTER OF JUSTICE.
This action on the part of Mr. Swart was not unexpected, yet coming face-to-face with the police state gave me a shock.
Without any hearing or trial, I was ordered to leave my job and abandon the work to which I had devoted my entire adult life. The clause which forbade me to attend any gatherings other than social ones created considerable difficulties. What is a "social gathering"? The vagueness of this part of the order was most embarrassing. I might attend a gathering which I considered "social" but the law did not and, by so doing, become liable to three years' imprisonment.