If this be treason: Helen Joseph's dramatic account of the treason trial, the longest in South Africa's history and one of the strangest trials of the 20th century

by Helen Joseph

Helen Joseph, founding member of the ANC’s ally, the Congress of Democrats, was one of the main organisers in the Women’s March of 9 August 1956. Arrested on a charge of high treason in 1956, and banned the next year, Helen suffered constant persecution. The first person in South Africa to be placed under house arrest, she survived several assassination attempts. In this personal account, Joseph writes about enduring the Treason Trial – one of the longest and most important trials in South African history, where she stood accused along with Nelson Mandela and Walter Sisulu. With disarming honesty, she shares stories of the women’s prison, the behind-the-scenes discussions with their defence team, the constant daily humiliations, but also their perseverance and small triumphs. This book, originally banned and not available for decades, adds a vital dimension to our understanding of South Africa’s recent history.

311 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1963

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.

Reviews

[Carolien · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is an absolute gem. It was written by Helen Joseph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Jo...) as a diary on behalf of the 30 treason accused to complete the work began by Lionel Forman who wrote "The South African Treason Trial". His book covered the preparatory part of the trial, but he died before the actual trial commenced.
Helen Joseph was the only white person (and one of two women) who were part of the final 30 accused in the trial.

On 26 June 1955, The Freedom Charter was signed by 3000 representatives of various political, labour and civil rights organisations in Kliptown, near Johannesburg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_.... The famous first line would be included in the preamble to the new South African constitution in 1996 - We, the people of South Africa...

In December 1956, 156 people were arrested that represented all walks of life. 104 Africans, 44 Whites and Indians and 8 Coloureds (mixed-race). Some were former members of the banned South African Communist Party, many belonged to the ANC, some were academics and clergymen and some labourers and trade unionists (one of the accused was Dr Albert Lithuli, recipient of the Nobel Peace prize). A preparatory examination was held in the Drill Hall in Johannesburg http://www.gauteng.net/attractions/en... at the end of which charges were dropped against 61 of the accused. The remainder were split into two groups and a first group of 30 were brought to trial in 1959. During the preparatory stage, the accused were held in the Old Fort in Johannesburg which houses the South African Constitutional Court these days. http://www.constitutionalcourt.org.za...

The actual trial was held in Pretoria and justice had to be seen to be done. It started in January 1959 and would eventually conclude on 29 March 1961. The sheer time scale would take a toll on the accused with many being unable to continue in their occupations. Nelson Mandela had to close his law firm since he could not represent clients in court during the time.

The team of Defence lawyers represented some of the best legal minds ever produced by the South African legal fraternity. The book provides an excellent description of the sheer tedium experienced by the accused spending day after day on hard benches in the Old Synagogue in Pretoria where the trial was held. Initially they were out on bail and the Department of Justice arranged a bus to transport them to the court each day from Johannesburg.

However, following the Sharpeville massacre in March 1960, all the accused would be held in prison for the next five months along with thousands of other activists. During this time, it became impossible for the accused to meet with their legal counsel and they dismissed them. They obtained permission to conduct their own defence. Helen Joseph was one of the accused who gave testimony during this period. The book is rich with obscure details such as the lengths the apartheid regime would go to enforce its policy. As the only white woman, Helen had to ride in the front of the prison wagon everyday on her own. One of the absurdities of the situation was that the one place where the accused could freely mingle irrespective of race was in the actual court room itself.

I recently read the Bill of Rights in the South African Constitution in detail and it is interesting that one of the longest sections deals with the rights of prisoners. Once you have read this book, you understand the context within which this section of the Constitution was written, because just about every word in this section did not apply to those held under the State of Emergency rules in South Africa. Helen Joseph explains the petty rules that were enforced by the prison authorities and the sheer boredom that accompanied so much of it. She herself spent the first 19 days after her incarceration effectively in solitary confinement.

The trial record should make an excellent record of the early history of the ANC since many of its luminaries were called upon to testify in excruciating detail. Chief Luthuli alone spent 32 days on the witness stand! Eventually the 30 accused were acquitted and the charges dropped against the remainder of the group. Interestingly enough, three years later the State chose to prosecute the Rivonia trialists for sabotage, not treason, since that was so difficult to proof under South African law which is a mixture of Roman-Dutch and English common law.

Another debt to Andre Deutsch who published the original volume which was edited by Diana Athill in 1963. It was (obviously) banned in South Africa and only published in 1998 (six years after the death of Helen Joseph).

Section 35 of the South African Constitution reads:
35.Arrested, detained and accused persons
1.Everyone who is arrested for allegedly committing an offence has the right- a.to remain silent;
b.to be informed promptly- i.of the right to remain silent; and
ii.of the consequences of not remaining silent;

c.not to be compelled to make any confession or admission that could be used in evidence against that person;
d.to be brought before a court as soon as reasonably possible, but not later than- i.48 hours after the arrest; or
ii.the end of the first court day after the expiry of the 48 hours, if the 48 hours expire outside ordinary court hours or on a day which is not an ordinary court day;

e.at the first court appearance after being arrested, to be charged or to be informed of the reason for the detention to continue, or to be released; and
f.to be released from detention if the interests of justice permit, subject to reasonable conditions.

2.Everyone who is detained, including every sentenced prisoner, has the right- a.to be informed promptly of the reason for being detained;
b.to choose, and to consult with, a legal practitioner, and to be informed of this right promptly;
c.to have a legal practitioner assigned to the detained person by the state and at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, and to be informed of this right promptly;
d.to challenge the lawfulness of the detention in person before a court and, if the detention is unlawful, to be released;
e.to conditions of detention that are consistent with human dignity, including at least exercise and the provision, at state expense, of adequate accommodation, nutrition, reading material and medical treatment; and
f.to communicate with, and be visited by, that person's- i.spouse or partner;
ii.next of kin;
iii.chosen religious counsellor; and
iv.chosen medical practitioner.


3.Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right- a.to be informed of the charge with sufficient detail to answer it;
b.to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence;
c.to a public trial before an ordinary court;
d.to have their trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay;
e.to be present when being tried;
f.to choose, and be represented by, a legal practitioner, and to be informed of this right promptly;
g.to have a legal practitioner assigned to the accused person by the state and at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, and to be informed of this right promptly;
h.to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings;
i.to adduce and challenge evidence;
j.not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence;
k.to be tried in a language that the accused person understands or, if that is not practicable, to have the proceedings interpreted in that language;
l.not to be convicted for an act or omission that was not an offence under either national or international law at the time it was committed or omitted;
m.not to be tried for an offence in respect of an act or omission for which that person has previously been either acquitted or convicted;
n.to the benefit of the least severe of the prescribed punishments if the prescribed punishment for the offence has been changed between the time that the offence was committed and the time of sentencing; and
o.of appeal to, or review by, a higher court.

4.Whenever this section requires information to be given to a person, that information must be given in a language that the person understands.
5.Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right in the Bill of Rights must be excluded if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair or otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice.

[Claire Nicholas-Author · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very powerful book.

I bought it in order to do some research for a small project regarding the life of the author. I was not expecting the level of drama that she had experienced throughout her years in South Africa, fighting against apartheid.

As it is a record of those years, much of which revolves around imprisonment and court trials, there is a degree of repetition. Instead of that making the book boring, it helps the reader to understand the frustrations of the people involved, and the cruel way their hopes were raised, and then almost immediately crushed.

If anyone wants to read an account of what life was truly like for black and coloured people during the apartheid regime, this book certainly offers that.

[Eileen · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was so frustrating to read as the courts and police just kept jerking them around to drag out the trial .

[Jennifer · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting perspective on the trial as well as a commentary on the trial itself. We as a country have moved from this point but we are not immune from the issues that were raised