The seriousness of Nelson Mandela’s health status was driven home on Sunday when his family took charge of his hospital stay.
The Star understands that the family have barred everyone – including government leaders and senior party officials – from visiting the ailing icon, who was rushed to Pretoria’s Mediclinic Heart Hospital around 1.30am on Saturday.
Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe visited the same hospital on Saturday, but left without seeing Madiba.
His spokesman, Thabo Masebe, said, however, that Motlanthe was there for a scheduled appointment with his own doctor. “He never had plans to visit Mandela.”
Mandela’s family were refusing to issue any statement on Madiba’s health. Spokesman Mandla Mandela was unavailable throughout the weekend.
President Jacob Zuma’s spokesman, Mac Maharaj, announced for the first time that Mandela’s condition was serious. In all of Mandela’s previous hospitalisations – six times alone in the past six months – the presidency had resolutely tried to put a positive spin on statements to what it has described as routine procedures or
Nelson Mandelas granddaughters Ndileka and Tukwini, and daughter Makaziwe arrive at Mediclinic Heart Hospital in Pretoria on Sunday. Picture: Phill Magakoe
THE STAR
By the time The Star was published on Sunday night, Maharaj had still not issued an updated statement on Madiba’s health and could not be reached for comment.
The hospitalisation has puzzled observers, given the sizeable investment in resources and highly trained military medical service personnel at his Houghton, Joburg, residence after his last discharge from hospital.
The Star has learnt that Mandela’s family issued the ban once his health deteriorated at the weekend because they believe visitors are at best a distraction to efforts to keep him comfortable or at worst leak information to the media.
Three highly placed government sources told The Star on Sunday that Mandela’s condition was “scary”, but he was still holding on to life.
Well-placed sources confirmed that the so-called M-Plan, the government’s blueprint for handling every aspect of Mandela’s death – from his funeral to interment – was reactivated at the weekend following his readmission to hospital.
A senior government official said on Sunday: “The old man is not well. It’s scary. He’s still holding on to his life, but it’s bad. The family don’t want visitors because of his condition. They told the hospital not to allow anyone in because they are a distraction.”
ANC national spokesman Keith Khoza said the ruling party was watching Mandela’s condition closely.
Asked if the ANC was aware of the Mandela family’s decision to bar visitors to the hospital, Khoza replied: “No we are not. It’s only the office of the president that can comment. We don’t talk to the medical staff.”
Political parties and politicians, meanwhile, continued to wish Mandela a quick recovery on Sunday.
While Azapo wished Mandela a speedy recovery, it said he should pass on “if God is willing” because South Africans “do not wish to see images of their heroes frail”. – IOL
South Africa prayed for Nelson Mandela on Sunday as the revered peace icon spent a second day in hospital, with calls for the family and the nation to “let him go”.
Government officials have given no update on his health since announcing that the frail 94-year-old was taken to a Pretoria hospital early Saturday in a “serious but stable” condition suffering from a lung infection.
South Africans are beginning to come to terms with the mortality of their first black president and father of the “Rainbow Nation”, following a string of health scares in recent months.
The Sunday Times newspaper carried a front-page picture of the beloved elder statesman smiling and waving under the headline: “It’s time to let him go”.
It is the fourth hospital stay since December for the Nobel peace prize laureate, who turns 95 next month, after he was discharged in April following treatment for pneumonia.
Although the government has not identified the hospital treating Mandela, family members were seen leaving a heart clinic in Pretoria where a large media camp is gathered.
“We wish Madiba a speedy recovery, but I think what is important is that his family must release him,” Mandela’s long-time friend Andrew Mlangeni, 87, told the Sunday Times, using his clan name.
“Once the family releases him, the people of South Africa will follow. We will say thank you, God, you have given us this man, and we will release him too,” said the former apartheid era prisoner, who was jailed for life alongside Mandela in 1964.
Mandela is revered as a global symbol of forgiveness following his release from 27 years in prison during white minority rule and his latest hospitalisation has triggered outpourings of concern across the globe.
He has not been seen in public since the World Cup final in July 2010.
Song filled the morning air at the Regina Mundi church in Soweto, a key flashpoint in the anti-apartheid struggle, as worshippers prayed for their hero.
“I mean Tata is 94. At 94 what do you expect?” said churchgoer Sannie Shezi, 36, using an affectionate term meaning father.
“He lived his life, he worked for us. All we can say is God help him. If things happen they will happen, but we still love him.”
Mandela’s third wife Graca Machel has been at his hospital bedside after calling off a trip to London where she had been due to attend a global conference on hunger.
While Twitter users expressed sadness over Mandela’s latest illness and urged a quick recovery, they were also prepared for the worst.
“Madiba has served us well , a real blessing a definition of a leader but it’s time to let him Go. We can’t hold on forever,” said one tweet.
While the official description of his health as serious was unusually sombre, presidency spokesman Mac Maharaj told AFP on Saturday that Mandela was breathing on his own.
“The truth of the matter is a simple one. Madiba is a fighter and at his age as long as he is fighting, he’ll be fine,” he said.
— ‘Legend in our country’ —
South Africa’s one-day cricket captain AB de Villiers joined world figures including Prime Minister David Cameron and the White House in sending best wishes for Mandela.
“He’s a legend in our country,” he said on a tour in England, voicing hope that Mandela would recover soon and “maybe even get that big 100 when it comes to birthdays”.
Mandela was being treated at at his Johannesburg home when his condition worsened and he was taken to hospital in Pretoria at 1.30am Saturday.
He was diagnosed with early-stage tuberculosis in 1988 and also has had treatment for prostate cancer and suffered stomach ailments.
In December, Mandela spent 18 days in hospital, his longest as a free man.
In March he was admitted for an overnight scheduled check-up before returning later that month for 10 days.
In March, Zuma appeared to prepare the nation for Mandela’s passing, saying: “In Zulu, when someone passes away who is very old, people say he or she has gone home. I think those are some of the things we should be thinking about.”
Controversial television footage in April showed a frail, distant and unsmiling Mandela being visited at home by ANC leaders, sparking accusations that his party was exploiting him.
The ruling African National Congress — facing elections next year — has lost much of its Mandela shine amid widespread corruption, poverty and poor public services.
After serving just one term as president, Mandela turned his energy to AIDS and conflict resolution, before stepping out of the public eye a decade ago at the age of 85. – AFP
Young South Africans were wishing former President Nelson Mandela well outside a Pretoria hospital on Saturday morning.
“Tata get better. We are going to pray for you,” Gail Prosperity, 22, said.
She said she only found out Mandela was in hospital after she saw the large media contingency outside the hospital.
“Honestly I don’t want to lie to you it really touched me… My spirit is going down.
“This thing for Madiba is inside of us.”
Prosperity said she wanted him to get well soon as he gave South Africa freedom.
Runs Mabuza, 31, who lives opposite the hospital said he was feeling bad about Mandela’s hospitalisation.
“He’s sick and then he is old. The country loves him,” he said.
“I wish him the best and that he must recover quickly.”
Large groups of local and international media were stationed outside the hospital on Saturday after the presidency announced Mandela was admitted in a “serious but stable” condition.
Photographers and journalists were monitoring cars entering and exiting the hospital.
There was no security apart from a normal hospital guard stationed outside the building.
Early on Saturday morning presidency spokesman Mac Maharaj said Mandela was admitted due to a recurring lung infection.
“This morning at about 1.30am his condition deteriorated and he was transferred to a Pretoria hospital,” Maharaj said in a statement.
“He remains in a serious but stable condition.”
Maharaj said doctors were doing everything they could to make Mandela “better and comfortable”.
“President Jacob Zuma, on behalf of government and the nation, wishes Madiba a speedy recovery and requests the media and the public to respect the privacy of Madiba and his family,” Maharaj said.
On April 6, Mandela was discharged from hospital after spending nine days receiving treatment for recurring lung problems. The Nobel Peace Prize laureate has suffered lung ailments before.
Early in March, he was admitted to a Pretoria hospital for a scheduled check-up and was discharged the following day.
In December last year, Mandela underwent an operation to remove gallstones and treat the recurring lung infection. He was discharged after an 18-day stay and placed under home-based high care at his Houghton home.
In January, the presidency said Mandela had made a full recovery from the surgery and continued to improve. In February last year he was admitted to hospital for a stomach ailment.
At the time, the presidency said Mandela underwent a diagnostic procedure to investigate the cause of a long-standing abdominal complaint.
In January 2011, Mandela was taken to Milpark Hospital for routine tests relating to respiratory problems.
Mandela’s last major public appearance was in July 2010, at the final of the Fifa World Cup at Soccer City stadium in Johannesburg.
Since then he had spent his time between Johannesburg and his ancestral village of Qunu in the Eastern Cape. – Sapa
Since the ANC takeover in South Africa, this country has become race-obsessed. Not only do we have a huge number of laws that favour blacks over whites, but not a day goes by without someone being publicly accused of “racism”.
Whereas blasphemy, or denigrating Christians generally, is considered freedom of speech, merely stating a fact about black people can often lead to public denunciations, charges of “hate speech” or worse. In South Africa, as in Britain and some other countries, there exists a “Human Rights Commission” whose sole purpose, it seems, is to sniff out “racism” in its various forms, almost like the Spanish Inquisition used to enquire into heresy in the fifteenth century.
I was recently publicly accused here in South Africa of “allowing hate speech” on my Facebook wall. To some extent the motivation was revenge as I had complained about a radio announcer’s swearing at one of my Facebook “friends”, a very civil lady from Cape Town. Within a day or two, he saw fit to retaliate by gathering a whole series of “expert comments” about the “hate speech” proliferating on my Facebook wall, as well as those of some other Afrikaner activists. I could not quite understand what it was all about, but apparently referring to black perpetrators of South Africa’s notorious farm murders as “barbarians” was a clear instance of “racism” and “hate speech”.
Please note that I did not call any black murderers “barbarians”, but some of my 7 000 Facebook friends and followers did. My sin, according to the radio station RSG, was “not removing it timeously”. My retort was that I could hardly police the utterances of the public or act as a self-appointed censor for all those people who are unhappy about the extreme levels of crime and violence in South Africa.
What I also find surprising about the logic of “hate speech”, is that the underlying cause of discontent, i.e. bloody murders and torture, seems to be morally superior to ethnic comments made in reaction to such crimes.
Since this incident about a week ago, various people, on Twitter and elsewhere, have threatened me with prosecution by the so-called Human Rights Commission for “hate speech” which I did not even utter myself but simply “tolerated”. So I suppose if you organise a public meeting in a rented hall somewhere and someone arrives to utter the word “kaffir” or “nigger”, you could be held liable.
That is why I am starting to think that “racism” is a religious concept. The extreme sensitivity that anti-racists have towards certain words or even innuendo is very much akin to intolerance of blasphemy. In Europe I know bananas have been banned in some soccer stadiums for being a form of symbolic insult to black players who have occasionally been offered such fruit on the pitch. I honestly love bananas, eat at least one every day for breakfast and would never decline the curved yellow gift of the tropics. The notion that one could be insulted or defamed by a banana is so absurd that, again, the symbolism must relate to the arcane rules of a religious cult.
Although it is more or less acceptable to criticise Muslims, specifically “Islamists”, in the West, year after year it gets more difficult to voice almost any form of censure regarding black behaviour. The amazing thing is that we now have the exact opposite of what pertained in the nineteenth century when blacks were seen to occupy the lowest rung of human and civilisational evolution. It is as if blacks have ascended to Mount Olympus itself and it is incumbent upon us to respect, nay, revere them.
In American popular culture, such as Hollywood movies, blacks are often presented as the saviours of planet earth or of America. They infuse the white world with their special, divine essence. At the very least, no white protagonist could peform his heroic duties without black assistance. While white characters tend to be fallible, human, blacks are often cast in the roles of morally umblemished near-saints or sages “keeping whites on the right track”.
Often I have been in the presence of Europeans, especially liberal Britons, who tend to be cold and dismissive of their fellow whites, but who display the most unctuous and exaggerated civility towards blacks. It is as if a black, any black, is the most interesting creature imaginable, a prophet as it were, whose very thoughts and gestures need to be attentively followed, savoured, to the exclusion of everybode else.
When it comes to black politicians like Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela, we are treading on hallowed ground indeed. For a minister of religion, King led a debauched life and told many lies, yet his reputation as one of America’s greatest leaders and sages is unquestionable.
Although he started out as a petty terrorist, Mandela has now been anointed by the world media as nothing short of a saint, if not the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. Almost every world leader has at some point paid tribute to Mandela, with Bill Clinton in the forefront, during and after his presidency. The fact that he probably never wrote any of his speeches himself, including the oft-quoted one delivered from the dock during the so-called Rivonia trial, is simply glossed over.
One of the people who made him famous, the British journalist Anthony Sampson, had the following to say about Mandela in his autobiography, The Anatomist (2008):
“I would love to recollect that I recognised Mandela from the start as a true leader of his people, destined to change the course of history. But in truth at that time (in the 1950s – DR) I sadly underestimated him: he seemed to me too flashy and vain, with his immaculate suits and his wide smile, and he kept aloof from most white observers; I found his rhetoric too formal and stilted, full of anti-colonialist clichés.”
Questioning Mandela’s greatness will probably in itself be considered heresy, or punishable “hate speech”. Yet one cannot help but wonder at the global adoration of someone who spent half his life in prison for a half-baked plan to place bombs in public places and who would ultimately insist on not being conditionally released, but “on his own terms”.
New York Times columnists regularly accuse the Republican Party of “racism” and I suppose the only way in which the GOP could refute them would be by fielding a candidate of colour themselves. The importance of “not being racist” has assumed such proportions that it dwarfs any other political issue, including global financial problems or the wars in the Middle East.
The day is probably not far off when for white voters to vote for a white candidate would be deemed “racist” too. Certainly in South Africa, despite the increasing evidence that black government is anything but utopia, any attempt to escape from it is seen as challenging the laws of the universe. No matter how corrupt and incompetent our local black leaders and officials turn out to be, submitting to them is seen as a moral imperative.
The small community of Afrikaners living together in Kleinfontein, thereby attempting to escape the crime and financial profligacy of nearby Pretoria with its ANC municipality, was recently accused of “racism”, with both CNN and the BBC rushing in to expose their almost criminal deviancy from the multicultural norm.
Probably the most successful political system ever devised was that of Ancient Egypt which lasted several thousand years. However, the key to pharaonic dominance was not to be found in its politics, but in its strictly ordered religious system. The pharaoh was an absolute ruler, but also a god. Not submitting to him must have been unthinkable, a mere mortal rebelling against divine authority.
The vicissitudes of modern democracy being what they are, it is hard to conceive of such an absolute monarch or permanent dynasty today. But what if anti-racism had to succeed in elevating Africans to a special place on earth, as “natural rulers” over the rest of mankind? The ruling elites of Africa are today the closest thing we have to an aristocracy, given the social distance between them and ordinary people, as well as the kind of obeisance they demand, from their impoverished countrymen, but especially from whites. In South Africa, even our liberal media marvel at the glittering ostentation and partying insouciance of our black political gods, using terms like “conspicuous consumption”.
The relative ease with which a fairly unknown politician from the South Side of Chicago such as Obama managed to obtain two presidential terms in America, also shows that the cult of negritude or whatever one needs to call this new secular religion is dominant in the world’s only superpower too.
The irony, of course, is that self-confessed atheists and agnostics in the West are the most ardent adherents to the cult of the black race, adulating King, Mandela, Obama and others who will no doubt soon follow in their footsteps.
Freud thought that Moses might have been an Egyptian. If we are to believe Afrocentrists, the ancient Egyptians could have been black, another highly dubious theory.
But if Moses were black, it would certainily explain why the Judaeo-Christian world so often craves a pharaonic – in the sense of larger-than-life – black king to come and save it.
Nelson Mandela is doing well but has memory lapses, a close friend said on Monday.
Mandela spent a night in hospital at the weekend for a medical checkup, AFP reported.
The 94-year-old is aware of current political events, but he forgets at times that his fellow anti-apartheid activists are dead, said human rights lawyer George Bizos, who defended Mandela during his 1960s treason trial.
Bizos paid a visit to the Nobel Peace Prize-winner at his Johannesburg home 10 days ago and said Mandela “looked OK.”
Canon John Collins at an anti-nuclear rally in Trafalgar Square, London in February 1961 Photo: Wikipedia
This article was writen by Denis Herbstein and published in the Observer Review on Sunday 5th May 1991. In it the author boasts of how the Anglican Church fomented revolution in South Africa by funding political trials and insurrection against a sovereign state, supposedly on friendly terms with Great Britain.
Many of the people Herbstein calls ‘political activists’ were in fact terrorists, laying mines on the roads frequented by farmers and their families, or placing bombs in supermarkets or on sidewalks such as the notorious ‘Church Street bomb’ that went off on 20 May 1983 in Pretoria, killing 19 people and injuring or maiming 219 others. The clergy of the Anglican Church and especially Canon Collins, had in fact embraced violence and terror as an essential means to bring the South African government to its knees.
For his contribution to the downfall of the previous South African government, Canon Collins (1905–1982) was posthumously awarded The Order of the Companions of OR Tambo in Gold on 27 April 2007 by the ANC regime of South Africa. His wife, Diana Collins, was knighted by the Queen of England in 1999 as a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire.
At last, ‘Defence and Aid’ can own up to prodigious feats. Over the past quarter of a century, since it was banned by Pretoria, the London-based anti-apartheid organisation has smuggled £100 million into South Africa. The money has been used for the defence of thousands of political activists and to provide aid for their families while they were in prison.
The International Defence and Aid Fund for Southern Africa, to give it its full name, was the brain-child of John Collins, a Canon of St Paul’s Cathedral, and was never penetrated by Pretoria’s feared secret police, BOSS. Last year, IDAF was unbanned by President F. W. de Klerk. There was no longer a need for the cloak and dagger. The story can now be told.
Canon Collins’s flair for raising money for radical causes faced its baptism in 1956, when South Africa launched the firstof its treason trials. The canon guaranteed the legal costs and support for the 156 accused and their families. He was as good as his word. He wrote to the newspapers, held protest meetings and art exhibitions, had Paul Robeson singing spirituals in the cathedral. Almost single-handed, he raised two thirds of the costs of £250,000, the remainder coming from Defence and Aid in South Africa. The trial dragged on for four years before the last of them was acquitted.
By then, the British Defence and Aid Fund for Southern Africa (as it was first called) was in operation. Nelson Mandela, on the run from South Africa, came one day in 1962 to lunch at Amen Court, the family’s grace-andfavour house near St Paul’s. Collins’s widow, Diana, says: ‘He asked John if he would still support them if they turned to violence. There was a long discussion. John was a pacifist, but he said it was not for us to tell South African blacks what to do. Whatever they were accused of, they should have a fair trial and their families helped.’
A year later, Mandela, Walter Sisulu and other ANC leaders were in the dock at the Rivonia Trial. Their defence costs were largely met by Defence and Aid. Otherwise, Mandela et al might not have been saved from the gallows.
The small fry were not forgotten. A prosecutor in the Eastern Cape was heard to lament: ‘We have no problem in political cases – they all plead gilty, then Defence and Aid steps in.’
Defence and Aid went international in 1965, with branches in Britain, New Zealand, Scandinavia, Holland and India. Collins made his plans clear to the United Nations special committee on apartheid: ‘No political organisation which seeks to change South Africa’s racial policies can function properly in the open; the black political organisations are banned. Those who wish to continue the struggle have to go underground. But what man or woman can happily or easily undertake such dangerous work if he or she knows that, by doing do, the wellbeing of the children and other dependants is at stake?
No wonder the Pretorias hated Defence and Aid and the irrepresible ‘politial priest’ who was forever putting apartheid in the dock of world opinion. On 18 March 1966, Johannes Vorster, Minister of Justice, banned the South African Defence and Aid Committee as an ‘unlawful organisation’ under the Suppression of Communism Act. Lengthy prison sentences awaited those who handled the tainted money. The Terrorism Act would make it a capital offence to attempt to bring about social change with the help of a foreign government or institution, even when no violence was involved. The safety net which Collins had promised to those on trial for their beliefs seemed doomed. The Canon of St
Paul’s cast about for a solution.
It came from Neville Rubin, a liberal South African lawyer, who devised a barriered system of legal firms using numbered trust accounts. They found a sympathetic solicitor, another South African, Martin Bayer, of Birkbeck, Montagu’s in St Bride’s Street, a short walk from the cathedral. Within a fortnight, Collins, Rubin, Bayer, his colleague William Frankel and Phylis Altman, the IDAF general-secretary, had agreed on a plan that would keep the South African at arms’ length for a long while.
The plan came in two parts. Collins set up a network of impeccable donors to fund defences. The recruits were not bogus, but little of the money was to come from their own pockets.
The smokescreen featured Lord (Jock) Campbell, Booker sugar baron and chairman of the New Statesman board; Jacquetta Hawkes, J.B. Priestley’s wife; two Labour peers, Walston and Mitchison, and the latter’s authoress wife Naomi; Lord (C.P.) Snow; and Professor Norman Bentwich. They became trustees of fine sounding organisations operated through numbered accounts at the Zurich branch of Lloyds Bank, and later the Union Bank of Switzerland.
Campbell chaired the ‘Freedom from Fear International Charitable Foundation’ for the legal defence programme, while the ‘Freedom from Hardship International Charitable Foundation’ accounted for welfare. Diana Collins is blunt about their role: ‘We managed to get these very public, respectable people to perjure themselves in a good cause by saying they had sent money.’
The second leg was the creation of a cordon sanitaire of solicitors who would correspond with the South African trial lawyers and transmit funds to them. These front firms never breathed a word about their connection with Birkbeck’s, who in turn carefully concealed the Collins link. Snoopers were thus two removes a least off scent. At IDAF, Collins and Phylis Altman alone were in on the ruse.
The Birkbeck lawyers explained to the front solicitors that delicate political reasons precluded the firm from handling such matters. They were nervous because of their South African clients. Consolidated Goldfields, under fire for its employment policies, might have been dismayed to learn that its then lawyers were in league with white South Africa’s favourite hate figure.
In the early days there were also friendly lawyers in Canada, Switzerland, New York, France and West Germany, and it might have seemed to Pretoria that they represented a wide spread of well-wishers. After a while, the lion’s share of work was consolidated in three or four English firms. They were not radical, simply people disturbed by the turn of events in South Africa. They believed that the money passing through their account came from a bona fide charitable trust or the private account of well-to-do, albeit left-of-centre, sponsors.
In time, these firms of English solicitors, little known to the British public, acquired enduring fame in revolutionary trials across South Africa – Carruthers & Co and Fox & Gibbons in the West End; Cole & Cole in Oxford; and more recently, Miller & Co in Cambridge, where Rosemary Sands has undertaken the bulk of the conduit work in the hectic years since 1985.
When a trial was in the offing, the phone would ring and a le-Carre-esque voice intone: ‘The boss wants to see Mr X’ (Frankel, who took over the Birkbeck work) or ‘Mr Y’ (Bayer).
The caller was David (now Sir David) Floyd-Ewin, registrar at St Paul’s, the canon’s go-between for much of the period. They met in the Chapter House or in the deserted cathedral, whispering to each other across the pews. Frankel recalls strolling along in earnest converse when Canon Collins opened a door that seemed part of the wall. No outsider culd have suspected that it led to a room. the Narnia alcove was the ‘Canon’s Closet’, where the cathedral’s canons prepared for services.
Frankel would then instruct one of the conduit firms to write to attorneys in South Africa thus: ‘We have read in the newspapers about the trial and have been asked by a British client to offer financial support.’
Henry Brown was a young attorney handling much of the political work at Frank, Bernadt and Joffe in Cape Town in the 1960s. He had 400 people, including Mandela, on his books, facing prison trials, appeals, and death penalties; most, it transpired, were funded by IDAF. Ostensibly, much of the money came from Lord Mitchison, through Fox & Gibbons in London. it happened that an attorney in a remote dorp complained of not having the resources to defend a group of men facing serious charges. A government official offered a solution: ‘Go to Brown. He can get money from Lord Mitchison.’
Sometimes the guard slipped. In the first show trial after the banning, 37 Namibians were up for treason in Pretoria. Defending them was clearly going to be costly. To counteract talk of Russian money, the defence attorney, Joel Carlson, let slip the Lord Campbell connection. Collins was horrified, but Campbell saved the day. ‘I knew it was not Eastern European money,’ he recalls, ‘so I agreed it should go through my account, though I was embarrassed because it was not mine. I did give IDAF some money, but not nearly as much as mythology suggests.’
Collins was in a dilemma. IDAF’s public face, its research and publicity sections, were effectively living up the credo of ‘keeping the conscience of the world alive’ on the apartheid issue. But he wanted blacks to know that Europeans were playing a direct role in the struggle. He knew that disclosing too much would destroy all he had built up. Within two years of the banning, he could assure the United Nations that IDAF was still fully operational, ‘despite all that the South African government and its supporters inside and outside South Africa have done to inhibit us.’
By the 1970s, South African agents were known to be active in Britain. The wiliest of Pretoria’s operatives, Craig Williamson, infiltrated deep into liberal circles, ending up deputy director of the Scandinavian-funded International University Exchange Fund in Geneva, which gave scholarships to hundreds of black refugees.
But IDAF was a bigger prize. He once cabled an attorney in South Africa promising funds for a trial, then asked Phyllis Altman at IDAF to reimburse him, hoping to establish the connection with a banned organisation.
Altman never dropped her guard. Williamson destroyed IUEF, but could not take IDAF down as well. The British Special Branch also seemed watchful. Lord Gardiner, when Lord Chancellor, called at Amen Court one day, and found his host on the phone. ‘If i were you, John,’ he said, pointing at the instrument, ‘I shouldn’t trust that thing.’ Diana Collins claims to have independent confirmation that their phone was bugged. The British and South African secret services, tailing CND and IDAF respectively, would have found common ground in the person of John Collins.
Collins died on 1 January 1983 and was buried in the cathedral where he never became dean, the one religious appointment he cherished. But his temporal achievements more than compensated for that. His successor at IDAF, Archbishop Trevor Huddleston, gave the address at the memorial service, and ANC leader Oliver Tambo read the parable of the Good Samaritan.
By then the canon’s underground liberation movement was well equipped to take on the greatly increased demands soon to arise. IDAF was possibly the South African legal profession’s most reliable employer, with more than 150 attorneys and 80 advocates on its books, though few realised where the money was coming from. In 1990 alone, lawyers received £5.65 million in fees.
Not all played the game. A Transvaal attorney decamped to England and threatened IDAF with exposure if he were not paid the money he claimed to be owed. Collins fearful of exposure, handed over £15,000 after clearing it with his donors. Frankel insists that misappropriation was negligible over the years. The IDAF books at Birkbeck’s were separately audited for presentation to the United Nations Trust Fund for Southern Africa.
Johannesburg accountants, Douglas and Velcich, carried out spot checks. As a result, 54 attorneys had their accounts queried. Overchargers were advised to tone down their fees. If not, they were asked to produce business accounts. Many small country firms, black and white, were heavily dependent on IDAF, and feared the ultimate sanction.
Reining in the Bar was more difficult. The big bucks – or more aptly, the big kroners – arrived in 1985, when trials and detentions began in earnest. IDAF, in consultation with the Washington-based Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, which funded some trials, drew up a tariff. (The ceiling is now R23,000 – £4,600 – a month for a senior counsel on retainer.) Some did say, ‘This is human rights work, OK,’ but for most of the Bar, a tariff was anathema. Nobody, however, could raise money like Defence and Aid. ‘It became a matter of wills,’ says Frankel, ‘and we won.’
Despite the legerdemain, it is hard to believe that from the mid-1980s, South Africa was unaware of the enormous transfer of funds. Phyllis Altman believes they did knowit was IDAF, but couldn’t fathom how. A cynic might suggest that a hard-pressed minister of finance swallowed twice and turned a blind eye to a huge inflow of foreign currency.
Without IDAF’s £60 million the mass of men and women in political trials over the last three decades would have entered the dock naked. The alternative in capital cases was a pro deo, or poor people’s, defence by an advocate fresh out of law school. The parsimonious state legal aid system did not look kindly on ‘politicals.’ In 1990, IDAF transfered R35 million for political defences, compared with Pretoria’s R17m in legal aid for all criminal trials.
Since January 1985, IDAF has funded 16,551 legal matters. This staggering figure covers State of Emergency detentions, pre-trial procedures, show trials, the common-law prosecution of street activists for stone throwing or school marches, stays of execution, criminal appeals, inquests, appeals by blacks forced out of white Group Areas, rural communities driven off their land, the restraint of harrasing policemen, commissions of inquiry.
IDAF financed the team appearing for the family of Steve Biko’s inquest – and is currently funding Winnie Mandela’s defence, a source of controversy. Robert Sobukwe, the Pan African Congress leader, was given a start to his legal practice in his Kimberley exile. In 1989, IDAF handled 198 children’s cases: 167 came to trial, when 134 charges were withdrawn. In 1990 alone, the legal work affected 28,000 South Africans. This year, it is 20,000.
Since 1983, the thousands of legal files have been handled on the top floor of IDAF headquarters in Canon Collins House, Islington. The offices of Programme One, as it was known, were out of bounds to the rest of the staff, who had little idea what went on above them. Every week, Frankel would peruse the high pile of documentation which arrived from the front solicitors, and send it on to be dealt with by the six-person staff.
On that floor, behind the same locked door, was IDAF’s welfare arm, Programme Two. Collins had made it an act of faith to alleviate the hardship of all prison dependants – and of the prisoners themselves, who, on release, were liable to be banned, held under house arrest or prevented from working; in other words, planned destitution.
As with the lawyers, welfare recipients had to be protected from the London connection. The solution, the brainchild of Phyllis Altman, was deceptively simple. It depended on hundreds of letter writers sending money through the post and keeping quiet about it for years. The first batch was recruited by the IDAF inner circle, and grew into a network covering Scandinavia, Holland, Ireland and Canada. Today there are 375 correspondents in Britain and another 250 abroad, of whom 115 are in Canada and 50 in Norway. Some have been writing to the same wife or grantmother for over 20 years.
Letter writers were unconnected with the struggle, and so beyond suspicion. No IDAF employee could be a correspondent, and South Africans were rare, for they might have been finger-printed or their handwriting known to BOSS.
Eileen Wainwright was living in Hemel Hempstead in 1972 when a friend, the sister of an exile, Hilda Bernstein, asked if she would write ‘as a concerned member of the public’ to a family in South Africa and enclose some cash. She ended up with 16 families on her roster. Only her husband was privy to the secret.
The letter writer’s opening gambit was carefully worded: ‘Dear Mrs Mpetla, I write as a concerned member of the public. I have heard you are in trouble. My friends would like to help you.’
It worked like clockwork. Every two months a bulky registered packet containing hundreds of pounds in cash arrived from a ‘Rev Williams’, for conversion into postal orders. The packet contained directions on what should be said to each family.
There was a flat two-monthly grant of £140 per family and an extra £60 a year for each school-going child, even for a family of 10 (blacks unlike whites, pay to go to school). A funeral was worth £300. There was extra for medical treatment, and to travel to Cape Town for a visit to Robben Island prison, a boon when you lived 1,500 miles away on the Zimbabwe border.
On release, a prisoner, whether famous or unknown, received R100 (£20) for every year inside. Mandela got R2,800. Ex-prisoners have been helped to complete their school exams, to study teaching or hairdressing. Others were set up in business with a knitting machine. Over the years, the programme has benefited 45,000 people.
Across South Africa, in tin hovels and mud huts, in bulging townships and sordid prisons, the recipients puzzled over the generous foreigners who had taken them under their wing – so unlike ‘Europeans’ at home.
‘Friend,’ one wrote, ‘I don’t know what i should do for you, so that you will see how essential are you in our lives.’
A mother passed on a message from her son, aged 13, that ‘now he can read and write english he is going to write you a sweet and detailed letter very soon.’
A correspondent, David Armstrong, was thought to be a vicar, though why, he was asked, did his letters not end with ‘I pray for you’? From 1985 the letters became more overtly political. A woman with a chest infection brought on by tear gas thrown into her yard, wrote: ‘In a way the stressful situation for the family is relieved when the father is in detention because at least now there is a relief because we’re not raided at home.’
For the most part, they said thanks, listed their needs, talked of the weather, or of a grandmother who had died. They were not grabbers. A physically handicapped woman qualified as a nurse, found a job and wrote: ‘Please give the grant to someone else.’
The British letter writers sent the replies on to a London accommodation address, or to a real person with no apparent IDAF connection. Father John Sherrington’s vicarage in north-west London was one of these.
Accommodation addresses were shuffled regularly. The IDAF workers who collected the mail from the post boxes were always white and British, and never went twice in a row nor at a regular time. But as the British letter writers were twice removed from the IDAF, BOSS would have needed vast resources and a degree of good fortune to reach the pot of gold.
Inside South Africa, the consequences of detection were far more serious. The editor of Muslim News, Imam Abdullah Haron, died in police custody in Cape Town, ‘falling down stairs.’ One of his crimes was to distribute IDAF money to families of political prisoners. More fortunate was the Anglican Dean of Johannesburg, the Very Rev Gonville Ffrench-Beytagh, who was sent down for five years under the Terrorism Act for helping dependants with rent, food, school fees, even spectacles. He got off on appeal.
All the while Mrs Hodgon and her team analysed the letters and evaluated the financial needs. A bulky registered letter would set the eight-week cycle turning again.
The 10 women in Programme Two adhered to Trappist vows of secrecy. Penelope Mayson is married to an exiled Methodist, Cedric Mayson, who would never have given the game away. He thougt his wife spent her days filing. It was a strain not talking, she says, ‘some of those letters were so harrowing.’
The correspondence often grew into genuine affection. David Armstrong was recruited 15 years ago by a fellow lecturer at Barnet College, Herts. ‘I had no knowledge of their lives, and did not wish to incriminatethem. So in a very British way, I wrote about the weather and my garden.’ At one time, both Joyce Mashamba and her husband were in prison, and their three sons were looked after by the grandmother. On her release, she wrote that vigilantes had ransacked her house. Armstrong burst into tears. ‘I was so angry that all I could do was send letters saying it was raining here and how’s the weather there?’
One day last year the telephone rang in his London house; Mrs Mashamba was in England on a course. ‘She sat in our dinning room telling her story. In and out of prison, harassed, isolated from husband and children. Yet they never broke her. I knew then that my work had been worthwhile, for now I understood the personal dimension of her struggle.’
For Armstrong, there was one jarring note. Five years ago IDAF discontinued the cumbersome ‘cash in the bag’ system and asked its correspodents whether they minded if the money went by bank transfer to their nearest Barclays Bank, where they would be expected to open an account. Barclays was then an antiapartheid target because of its extensive interests in South Africa – which is why the bank was convenient for IDAF. Armstrong gritted his teeth and went along with the plan.
Now Programme Two is being closed down. At the end of April, IDAF will hand over its files to the South African Council of Churches Dependants’ Conference. Peggy Stevenson, the programme director, has confessed to her letter-writers that, yes, IDAF was behind it all these years. She asked them to explain this to their South African families. Mrs Wainwright, now living in Devon, has mixed feelings: ‘They thought I was a great philanthropist. They didn’t know the money went further than me. So I was pleased to write and say where it realy came from. But I’ll feel bereft. Mt Meals-on-Wheels work in Lympstone is tame compared with writing letters to South Africa.
The £100 million estimated by IDAF’s current director Horst Kleinschmidt, have got into South Africa has come largely from Scandinavia and the United Nations.
Britain made one miniscule grant, preferring the doomed IUEF in Geneva. The Carter Administration proffered a small ‘one-off’. Former Prime Minister Vorster used to say that IDAF was ‘kept afloat’ by Communists, and he was correct in one respect: the contributions were in kind – wine from Bulgaria, slivovitz from Yugoslavia, a large consignment of vodka from the Soviet Union which Collins auctioned in the London docks.
In a way, the operation was a partnership between Canon Collins and the Swedish public. The link-man was a Swedish journalist, Per Wastberg, who in 1960 wrote a series of articles about apartheid in Dagens Nyheter. Money poured in from readers, and a defence and aid committee was set up.
In 1965, the Swedish government made its initial grants to IDAF; the UN Trust Fund followed suit the next year. Over the years IDAF would receive regular donations from 10-15 countries (and the UN from further 15). Sweden, Norway and Holland were the largest, India a modest but reliable contributor. Last year Sweden’s aid organisation, SIDA, donated £4 million to IDAF.
Programme One closed down last week, and human rights cases will be handled by agencies in South Africa. The country’s ‘IDAF lawyers’ now know the route of the funds they were receiving. It prompted one unwitting beneficiary, Cape Town lawyer Dullar Omar, to say: ‘Nobody knew where the money came from. Nobody got kudos. This was the key to its success.’ When Nelson Mandela was told of the extent of IDAF’s role he was said to have been amazed.
Diana Collins’s eyes light up at the memory of her husband: ‘They were extraordinary activities for a Canon of St Paul’s. I used to tell him that i married him under false pretences. There was an easy-going don at Oxford and my family preferred him to John. Such a dull life married to a clergyman!’
Former South African president Nelson Mandela’s 94th birthday will be celebrated before the start of the Tour de France’s 16th stage in Pau, organisers said on Tuesday.
France-South Africa Seasons 2012/2013 organisers have joined forces with Mandela’s family and Tour de France race officials to honour the anti-apartheid icon and a large banner reading “Happy Birthday Nelson Mandela” will be held up by local children before Wednesday’s stage.
Laurent Clavel, Commissioner General of France-South Africa Seasons on the French side, said the event will be witnessed by millions of people across the world.
“While thousands line the route in France, millions follow it on TV,” he added.
“It is an honour to be able to salute Nelson Mandela. The event … will generate a lot of interest in South Africa and will contribute to further cementing the relations between France and South Africa.” – AFP
Johannesburg – An urgent investigation is needed into abuse of the national anthem by artists and businesses, the Western Cape ANC said on Thursday.
Provincial secretary Songezo Mjongile was responding to reports that a Cape Town man buying chicken at take-away outlet KFC was shocked when a “vulgar, profane” version of the national anthem blasted out over the music system.
“Such blatant racism is untenable,” Mjongile said.
“The ANC calls on all South Africans to distance themselves from this kind of intolerance and to unite on the side of non-sexism and non-racism.”
The Cape Times reported that Tariq Mellett was waiting in the queue at the KFC in Buitenkant street, Gardens, when he heard what sounded like the national anthem, Nkosi Sikelel’ iAfrika.
“It sounded like parts of the national anthem, but I was surprised when the song started in Afrikaans with: Nkosi Sikelel’… Nkosi is ‘n doos, Mandela is ‘n f****n kaffir… and so on, at full blast,” he said.
“Two other customers and I were flabbergasted by the vulgarity, profanity and racism being belted out in a popular family restaurant.”
Mellett said they shouted at the staff to switch it off, but this was done only after some time.
KFC’s provincial manager Craig Davids told the newspaper it had referred the query to franchisor Yum Restaurants.
“We are in the process of looking into the matter, I can’t comment until we have checked it out,” he said. – Sapa
Cardiologist Dr Wouter Basson told a professional conduct committee on Tuesday that president Nelson Mandela had re-appointed him to the SA National Defence Force in 1995 because the United States and British governments regarded him as a threat.
Basson was in the witness stand for a second day to fight charges of unethical and unprofessional conduct before the Health Professions Council of SA (HPCSA).
The charges arise from his involvement in the apartheid government’s chemical and biological warfare programme in the 1980s and early 1990s.
Basson testified that a co-ordinating committee and the Surgeon General at the time had been in overall charge of the programme and that he only carried out orders as a soldier.
“His decision was final and I had to see to it that the work was done,” he said.
He said that although he retired from the then SA Defence Force (SADF) in 1992, he was called back in a civilian capacity to oversee the destruction of substances and weapons forming part of the project.
Only the teargas was saved, and several tons of it was handed to the police.
Basson reiterated that his task had been to create a defensive chemical and biological warfare capability for the SADF, but said a limited offensive capability was also necessary to equalise battle conditions.
The SANDF was established after South Africa’s first democratic election in 1994, replacing the SADF, but incorporating personnel from the SADF, the homeland forces and the armed wings of political parties.
According to Basson, former president FW de Klerk re-appointed him to the SANDF, on a civilian level, to help dismantle the chemical and biological warfare project.
There followed several meetings with the US and British governments, after which former president Nelson Mandela again appointed him, in a civilian capacity, as head of cardiology at the military hospital.
“The American and British governments at that stage regarded me as a threat and wanted to get me under control. The initial suggestion was that they should appoint me and that I work for them as a chemical and biological warfare consultant.
“My role would have been to ensure that technologies that were developed in Western worlds were carried over to developing countries for peaceful purposes.
“The South African government did not like the idea of one of their citizens working for other governments and president Mandela gave orders that I must be appointed in the defence force again in a civilian capacity,” he said.
He claimed that the regulations were bent for a day to allow his re-appointment in 1995.
He was thereafter a member of the SANDF until he started a private cardiology practice in Cape Town in 2003, but had no further involvement with chemical and biological warfare.
According to Basson, he re-enrolled at the University of Pretoria for retraining as a cardiologist to satisfy his colleagues and patients that he was on par as a cardiologist.
Basson reiterated his stance that the 1980s were “crazy years” and that his actions should be seen in the context of the times.
“People did things. Doctors planted bombs. decisions were made in the context of the time.
“Nothing I did was aimed at harming anyone. In fact it was aimed at preserving life and minimising loss of life.
“… I never acted unethically or unprofessionally,” he said.
Salie Joubert SC, acting for the pro forma complainant, accused Basson of “telling half truths” about, among other things, his chemical qualifications to try and remove his training as a medical doctor from his activities while he headed the germ warfare programme.
He put it to Basson that he was reappointed to the SANDF because he had collaborated with Libya and was regarded as a threat which had to be brought under control.
Basson admitted visiting Libya on several occasions over a 10-year period, but said he had no idea what was discussed with president Mandela at the time.
Basson admitted that his training was in physiological chemistry, but said he was appointed to head the project because he had a better knowledge of chemistry than most of his military and medical colleagues and had used that knowledge for the project.
“… Stop any doctor on the street and ask him if he would have been able to do it,” he said.
He denied that it had come as a shock when the HPCSA decided to continue with the professional misconduct charges against him, but said he had thought that he would be able to “get on with his life” after the Constitutional Court confirmed his acquittal in 2005.
The hearing continues.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.