Michael Lobban has written an extensive and detailed account of the South African political trials of the 1970s. Lobban's work
focuses on the government's fear of both action against, and the expression of opposition to, the apartheid system. From the
perspective of the apartheid government, any action or speech aimed at changing apartheid was necessarily criminal. If, as the
government believed, the white population would never voluntarily relinquish power, change could never occur peacefully. Thus to
suggest a system with a voice for black South Africans meant inevitable violence. To stress the illegitimacy of apartheid, much
less work toward a truly democratic polity, constituted terrorism. The government feared the very idea of equality for all South
Africans.
To contain the spread of such terroristic notions as equality and freedom, white South Africa believed containing the "leaders"
espousing such thoughts could suppress the extension of such ideas to the black population at large, which the government
persisted was pleased with its lot, and would remain so without the interference of a troublesome few "revolutionaries." The trials
were one avenue of attack to hold on to the fabric of apartheid, which even in the 1970s was beginning to unravel.
Lobban juxtaposes the trials of the black student groups, such as Black People's Convention and the South African Students'
Organization, with those of the white student groups, such as the National Union of South African Students. Students in both
groups were tried for the ideas they espoused. Lobban asserts that white students fared significantly better during their trials than
their black cohorts. Lobban also asserts that by punishing the leaders the government sought to intimidate others who might choose
to join the fight; isolating the leaders from the followers would cut the head from the body.
Paradoxically, the trials provided an avenue for those on trial to speak their ideas publicly, one of the few forums available, and the
trials were covered fairly openly by the press. To prove the government's nebulous terrorism and conspiracy charges, the state
detailed the philosophies of those on trial; and exposed the abuses of apartheid in the process. Descriptions of the barbaric forced
removals, the detentions, the coerced confessions and other human rights abuses were exposed publicly for all of South Africa, as
well as the larger international community. Thus the major trials Lobban examines, were the very avenues many groups used to
expand their influence. For example, Lobban notes the testimony of one accused:
In fact I witnessed the GG truck carrying people with everything that they have, and they are dumped at Gazankulu, there is an
area there where they were dumped, and that area had no water and there were no houses. What they did they built tents, the
ordinary tents that one might take when he goes for a picnic.... I even visited the situation because my sister had to be removed
with her husband (p. 61).
While the student trials focused on the illegality of the ideas of these groups, the latter trials focused on groups with more specific
goals than enlightenment. Following the 1976 Soweto uprising, white South Africa could no longer claim the masses were content.
The uprising began as a protest march against the compulsory use of Afrikaans in the secondary schools. As Lobban states, "The
riots changed the world which the authorities were used to dealing with. Instead of policing a handful of activists, they now faced
many thousands actively opposing the state" (p. 145).
Several statutes were passed to ease the burden of the prosecutors. First, the jurisdiction of the lower courts was expanded
increasing the numbers of courts available to try those accused. Second, the state altered its criminal procedures shifting the
burden of proof for those alleging inadmissible confessions. Police misconduct was generally difficult to prove, and thus
confessions were often the easiest route to conviction. Lobban details the trial of ten individuals accused of conspiring "to send and
receive messages, literature, and money from the African National Congress in Swaziland, to recruit members and set up routes to
smuggle them out of South Africa, and to obtain medical supplies for use by terrorists (p.168)." The defense focused on alleged
abuse and torture of the accused; one in fact died during detention. The state asserted a heart attack brought about the untimely
demise, despite abrasions over most of the accused's body, three cracked ribs and three subarachnoid hemorrhages as well as
other injuries. Despite substantial evidence of police brutality, the judge refused to believe white policemen "could lie with the
fluency that black men could" (p. 184). Not surprisingly, the state won its case.
Following the Soweto uprising, ever increasing numbers of blacks were joining the ranks of exiled ANC members, and the number
of armed insurrections increased concomitantly. Aware of these efforts, the government felt pressured not merely to isolate
dissidents, but to destroy the ANC and PAC organizations, preventing future armed resistance. Lobban focuses on the trial of the
Pretoria twelve accused of conspiring to recruit, train, and arm people for the ANC. The state sought to expose and eliminate the
Johannesburg structure, and to further link these structures with the Soweto students. Moreover, the government asserted that the
ANC was merely a "front organization" for the South African Communist Party that sought to replace apartheid with a Marxist
government structure. The state successfully prosecuted a number of individuals on the first charge, but was unsuccessful in
connecting the ANC to the Soweto students. Lobban also examines the trial of some 18 accused held in the small town of Bethel,
to avoid disruption. The evidence in the trial was heard in camera, to protect state witnesses. All but one of the 18 were convicted.
The last major trial that Lobban examines focuses on the Soweto students charged with sedition. Unlike the previous terrorism
trials, the students were charged not with seeking to overthrow the government, but with "disturbing the state." Eleven members of
the Soweto Students' Representative Council were charged with intentionally impairing the majesty of the state, thus defying
governmental authority. The allegations ranged from minor protests and demonstrations to various acts of sabotage, intimidation,
and even murder. The state initially sought to prove that the June 16, 1976 Soweto demonstration was in fact seditious. The
defense submitted evidence of the peaceful intent of the demonstrators. It was only after the police fired teargas and bullets that
the violence erupted. Despite this, the court ruled that objecting to the policies of the Department of Bantu Education was an
attack on the state. As Lobban notes, "This interpretation seemed to deny absolutely the right to protest and assemble, to make
any black protest against government policy potentially seditious" (p. 232). The state then had to prove the connection between the
demonstration and the student organization. It succeeded in this, though none of the accused was given more than a four-year
sentence. But more importantly the state was able to use the students as scapegoats for the Soweto unrest, absolving the
government and its policies.
Ultimately, the state succeeded in the majority of its cases because of several interconnected aspects of the apartheid legal
system. First, the statutes used to convict oppositionists were intentionally broad and vague. Interpretation was key. Second, the
evidence used at the trial was often equally imprecise. Cases frequently rested on a government witness whose testimony was
often vague and contradictory, except for the key elements necessary for conviction. "Confessions" were the easiest route to
conviction, but were often the end product of torturous interrogation sessions. Because of the vagueness of both the law and the
evidence, the judge became the critical factor in the decision-making process, even more than in the United States, because South
Africa, during the period examined by Lobban, had no jury system. The South African bench was entirely white, and
predominately Afrikaans. These judges were white South Africans sympathetic to the apartheid system. While they could protest
they were merely doing their job interpreting the law, these judges repeatedly ignored evidence of police brutality, even murder,
during detention, of police intimidation of witnesses, and of fabrication of evidence. Time and again, the state's version of events
was accepted as fact, and the allegations of police misconduct considered absurd. As Lobban notes, "These judges, for all their
rhetoric of the legitimacy of law, had their hands dirtied by the Machiavellian task of legitimation" (p. 188).
Lobban creates an exceptional documentation of the legal aspects of these trials. He focuses extensively on the strategies,
evidence, and various rulings that affected the outcomes. Despite their convictions, many of these "criminals" are now serving in
the administration of the New Republic of South Africa. They may have lost the legal battles explored by Lobban, but they won
the war for the democratic soul of South Africa. But succeeding where apartheid failed is no easy task. The new South African
constitution has an impressive array of protections for those accused of crimes. South Africans are learning that these protections
come at a cost. In a recent interview with a Cape Town prosecutor, I asked about the use of coerced confessions in the past and
the difficulty of entrenching the concept of constitutional protections. The prosecutor agreed that training sessions were in
progress, particularly with the police. She admitted that in the past the job of the prosecutor was much easier when the police
could obtain confessions through less than civilized means. Now, if the police resort to torture, the confession is very likely to be
ruled inadmissible, making the conviction extremely difficult. Now, as in the Black Consciousness era explored by Lobban, much
depends on the individual behavior and biases of the judge. But now, unlike then, the bench is composed of whites, blacks, and
Asians, men and women, English and Afrikaans, Zulu and Xhosa.
